PRIVATE BUSINESS

Mersey Tunnels Bill (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
	To be further considered on Tuesday 21 October.

Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

European Union

Wayne David: If he will make a statement about the EU's political relationship with countries that will border the expanded European Union.

Denis MacShane: We want the European Union's new neighbours to develop positive political and economic links with the EU, and in my visits, including a recent one to Ukraine, I encouraged them along those lines. The British Government took the lead a year ago to propose that the EU upgrade its relationships with its new neighbours and we shall pursue that policy energetically.

Wayne David: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the new European security strategy, outlined by High Representative Solana, shows a positive step forward on the basis of real security for the new Europe? Does he also agree that the new developing political geography of Europe offers great opportunities for the countries entering the EU, enabling a better and more positive relationship with countries to the east?

Denis MacShane: My hon. Friend is right. Mr. Solana's policy document on security is an important step forward, bringing Europe and the United States together. He is also right—and I can confirm it—that all my visits to new neighbours in eastern Europe show that the younger, reforming, modernising, progressive, intelligent, business-oriented politicians all look to the European Union and reject the strategy of saying no to Europe that we hear occasionally in the House.

Julian Brazier: Could I suggest that the Minister would do better to respond to the substantive question rather than make cheap jibes? The plain fact is that practical measures are what matters for countries bordering the future EU. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the Polish-Ukrainian border is not closed by the Schengen arrangements, which would have a disastrous effect not only on the Ukrainian economy but on that of the Soviet Union?

Denis MacShane: I do not want to make cheap jibes, but that country is called Russia now. If the hon. Gentleman visited the Polish-Ukrainian border, he would see both Warsaw and Kiev making concrete efforts to ensure that local border arrangements are in place to allow local trade to continue. The British Government and the EU have helped our Polish partners to establish adequate border arrangements. On my visit to Kiev last month, the issue highlighted by the hon. Gentleman was not raised. We must maintain trade and a border that allows Ukrainian and other reforming neighbours to look to the EU for future political relationships.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Having spent a good part of my spare time during the summer reading a 600-page tome on the history of Europe, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the expansion of the EU, and, I hope, the inclusion of other countries in future, is nothing to be scared of? Rather, it is a matter of back to the future.

Denis MacShane: I commend my hon. Friend's summer reading and wish that Conservative Members read something on Europe other than the Daily Mail with its isolationist, anti-European traditions. My hon. Friend, who is referring to the excellent book by Professor Norman Davies, is right. Our historic chance in the present House of Commons is to make enlargement work and show our new European neighbours that the EU is a force for good, for progress and for stability and security in this troubled world.

Richard Spring: Does the Minister agree that, in view of Turkey's stalwart support for our defence interests over many decades and its position as a bridge between two continents, every encouragement should be given to make Turkey ready for EU accession? Does he also agree that an important aspect of that task is resolution of the problem of Cyprus? What measures does the Minister propose to advance that?

Denis MacShane: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman and I am glad that there is one narrow area of terrain over which we see eye to eye. He is quite right. The Government want Turkey to look west and prepare itself for EU membership. A major contribution to that would be for Turkey to put pressure on the northern Cypriot-Turkish communities and leaders, so that a united Cyprus can enter the European Union on 1 May next year. Under the Annan plan, that would mean that one of its two leaders would be a Turkish Cypriot, Turkish would become an official language of the Union and Turkey would be dealing and negotiating with a partner that understood her language and culture. It is in Ankara's interests to do everything now to support a united Cyprus, under the Annan plan, joining the European Union.

Middle East

Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on prospects for a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East.

Jack Straw: With partners in the European Union, the United States, Russia and the United Nations, we continue to work for a comprehensive settlement based on the quartet road map. That sets out clearly what needs to be done to establish two states, Israel and Palestine, which can then live side by side in peace and with security. However, prospects for a comprehensive settlement have been set back recently by severe internal dissension within the Palestinian Authority, unlawful actions by Israel—including assassinations and the building of the security wall on Palestinian land—and, above all, by continued terrorism by rejectionist groups.

Mike Gapes: Today, we have seen a report that secret negotiations have been going on for two and a half years between leading Palestinian and Israeli politicians, including Yossi Beilin, Yasser Abed Rabbo and Amram Mitzna. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to welcome all contacts between Israelis and Palestinians designed to get out of the useless and terrible cycle of violence and back to politics, negotiation and compromise?

Jack Straw: I will indeed, and I commend the courage of all of those involved, especially Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo, whom my hon. Friend mentioned. The plan provides a realistic two-state solution, on the basis of land for peace. It is similar to that which was negotiated at Taba, under a different Israeli Cabinet and Government, and it deserves support. The fact that it may not receive support illustrates one of the profound frustrations of the current situation, in which solid majorities in both communities are desperate for peace and security, but neither side's political leaders know how to get there at present. We recognise our duty to assist them in every way we can, but the auguries are not encouraging at the moment.

Crispin Blunt: On the security wall, is the Foreign Secretary familiar with the Israeli military order issued on 2 October, which closes all the land between the security wall and the 1967 border? The order states that free access to the closed zone will only be allowed to Israelis, defined as Israeli citizens, Israeli residents and anyone allowed to immigrate to Israel. However it requires Palestinian residents of the closed zone to obtain permits to live in their homes, farm their land and travel. Is not such behaviour by the Israeli Government not only outrageous, but self-defeating in terms of achieving peace? Will the Foreign Secretary make his concerns known directly to the Israeli ambassador?

Jack Straw: I have already said that we regard the building of the wall on Palestinian land as unlawful. No one can have any objection to any sovereign state building a wall or fence along its international border, but that is wholly different from building a wall or fence on someone else's territory. It is Palestinian land, and the building of the wall will have many of the consequences that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Anybody who is unconcerned about the building of the wall and its effects needs to look at a map of the route that it has taken. We have indeed made our concerns well known, both to the Israeli ambassador and to the Israeli Government.

James Purnell: I welcome the efforts that my right hon. Friend has made to prevent funding from reaching Hamas. Is Syria continuing to fund terrorist groups and what more can be done to reduce such funding?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Following a lead given by Germany and ourselves, we were able to secure an asset freeze against Hamas across the European Union, in addition to action that we have taken in this country under the Terrorism Act 2000. However, we remain concerned about the overt and covert support given to rejectionist terrorist groups by the Government of Syria. It is unacceptable and is not in Syria's long-term interests.

Alan Duncan: Following what the Foreign Secretary has just said and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) can confirm from his days as a Northern Ireland Minister, the hard and unpalatable truth of conflict of that nature is that it makes sense to develop direct contacts with organisations deemed to be terrorist. Even with the collapse of the road map—or, even more crucially, because of it—it may be useful to talk to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Will the Foreign Secretary comment on newspaper reports that efforts by the UK and EU to maintain a dialogue with such organisations have been terminated? Will he confirm that any successful path to peace requires dialogue and discussion at all levels and with all parties involved in the dispute, however uncomfortable that might feel?

Jack Straw: Of course, if we are to resolve a conflict, we have to bring the parties who wish to resolve it to the negotiating table. That is what we did in Northern Ireland, and we have also assisted the Norwegian Government to do that in respect of Sri Lanka. However, there is no point in having a dialogue with groups that make it clear that they have murderous intent and which are seeking simply to blow up any prospect of peace. There was every opportunity for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah to support the road map for peace and their own Palestinian Authority when that was promulgated at the end of June. They failed to do so, and displayed a wilful desire to disrupt and undermine the elected Palestinian Government. However, their planting of terrorist bombs in Jerusalem on 19 August was the single most important cause of the breakdown of progress on the road map.

Richard Burden: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the security wall. It is not only illegal—it runs counter to the road map and to the Geneva accords announced yesterday. Given that, and the fact that Israel is continuing to build the wall, what can be done in practice to put pressure on the Sharon Government to cease that work? If construction continues on the route that is currently planned, peace agreements will be made irrelevant. We must not allow that to happen.

Jack Straw: As I have made clear, we disagree with the Israeli Government's decision to build the wall. We consider its building on Palestinian land to be unlawful and unacceptable, but it must be understood that the decision to build the wall was not an abstract one. It arose from a profound sense of fear among people in Israel and from their belief that they have to protect their security. That does not make the decision lawful or justifiable in our view, but it does explain it. If we want to see an end to such actions and to get the road map back on track, the first and essential precondition is for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the other rejectionist terrorist groups to announce a ceasefire and give up the idea that it will be possible to help the Palestinians to achieve a peaceful and secure future through the sort of terrible and rejectionist terror that those groups adopt. I also make it clear that the rejectionist terror adopted by Hamas and Islamic Jihad undermines very significantly the 90 per cent. or so of people in the occupied territories who support the Palestinian Authority and who want a peaceful route through.

Iraq

George Osborne: When he last discussed the situation in Iraq with the US Secretary of State.

Ross Cranston: If he will make a statement on the UN's role in Iraq.

Jim Knight: If he will make a statement on the numbers and dispositions of troops from countries other than the UK and the USA operational in Iraq.

Jack Straw: I discuss Iraq with Colin Powell almost daily, including this morning. The security situation, especially in Baghdad and the Sunni triangle, remains unsatisfactory, but there has been good progress in many other respects, with ambassador Bremer reporting last week that there are now 40,000 police in post and 400 courts in operation, and that electrical power generation is above the pre-war average. Universities, schools and hospitals are all working, with significant increases in pay for teachers and doctors. In addition, 14,000 km of irrigation canals have now been cleared, and the country has a free press and effective local government in most areas. In addition to the US and UK forces, 16,000 troops from 30 nations, including 11 EU and accession states, are operating on the ground.
	On the role of the UN, a new draft Security Council resolution, co-sponsored by the US, Spain, the Cameroons and the UK, was published in New York at 2.30 pm our time. A copy has been placed in the Library and made available to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. The aim of the resolution is to confirm the goal of transferring power to the Iraqis as soon as possible and, among other things, to enhance as far as practical the UN role in the process through a partnership between the coalition, the UN and, in particular, the Iraqis. I very much hope that it will attract support in the Security Council.

George Osborne: What the Foreign Secretary says is welcome news, but does he agree that attempts to reconstruct Iraq continue to be overshadowed by the controversy surrounding the decision to go to war? I know that he is a keen student of political diaries, so what does he make of the diary of the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), and his claim that the Prime Minister no longer believed by March that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that he could fire within 45 minutes?

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend is a man for whom I have very great respect—

David Cameron: But—

Jack Straw: But he was simply and completely wrong about that.

Ross Cranston: My right hon. Friend knows, as he was intimately involved in its drafting, that UNSCR 1500 conferred a legitimacy on the Iraqi governing council. He also knows that the Arab League has added to and bolstered that legitimacy. He knows, too, that resolution 1500 said that the establishment of the council was a step towards a democratic Iraq. Can my right hon. Friend give the House the benefit of his thinking about the timetable—perhaps the draft resolution says something about it—for, first, the completion of a constitution and, secondly, the holding of elections?

Jack Straw: The draft resolution places responsibility for coming forward with a time scale, for both the drafting of a new constitution and the holding of democratic elections under that constitution, on the governing council working in co-operation with the coalition provisional authority and, as circumstances permit, the special representative of the Secretary-General. The resolution requires that the time scale should be produced by the governing council by 15 December this year. That is a reasonable time scale to expect, and one that should ensure that more rapid progress is made to the achievement both of the constitution and of elections.

Jim Knight: Last year, I was able to visit Kabul and see the good work of the international security assistance force—ISAF—in restabilising and rebuilding that city. It is clear that a number of countries, which are not included in the impressive list of those involved in Iraq, have useful skills and experience to offer. Can the Foreign Secretary give us some indication as to whether there is any willingness among nations such as Finland, France and Germany, which have such useful skills, built up in Kabul, in Kosovo and so on, to help out with that important work in Iraq?

Jack Straw: We welcome all nations with the capabilities and commitment to join us on the ground in Iraq and, as I have indicated, 30 have done so already, including 11 EU and accession states. Both France and Germany have made it clear that they will not be putting any troops into Iraq; they could have done so, if they had wished to, under existing resolutions. I am not aware that Finland has proposals to do so, but the resolution—if it is passed—should create an even better climate, in which states that may have been reluctant to provide troops in the past could then do so.

Julian Lewis: Does the Foreign Secretary think that it would ever be sensible or practicable for coalition forces in Iraq to hand over power while Saddam Hussein remains at large?

Jack Straw: I do not make that a precondition for transfer of power, nor does the resolution. The precondition for a transfer of power is that there should be an effective, operating sovereign Government in Iraq with security forces at their disposal. One of the good things that has happened in the past six months is the build-up of security forces: there are now 40,000 police officers and many more are in training, and there are at least 20,000 other security officers. Battalions of the Iraqi army are also in training.

Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that any multinational force under unified command, which the current draft resolution envisages, must be answerable to, and obliged to report to, the Security Council? Can he tell the House what objections Her Majesty's Government have to a transition to democracy in Iraq wholly managed by the United Nations?

Jack Straw: The multinational force needs to be authorised by the United Nations and, indeed, that is proposed in the resolution. In any event, the authority for the occupying powers—the United States and the United Kingdom—derives from Security Council resolution 1483. On managing the transition, the simple fact is that the UN has never sought an exclusive role in respect of Iraq; what it seeks is a partnership. The resolution takes account of both the wish of the UN to be more heavily involved and the reluctance of the UN secretariat under Kofi Annan to put too many more of its own officials into the field until they are satisfied about security. Meanwhile, the responsibility has to rest with the governing council and the coalition provisional authority, but working, as the resolution says, in many respects as far as is practicable—in other words, at the call of the Secretary-General of the United Nations—with the UN.

Peter Kilfoyle: To consolidate support in the House for the initiatives that the Foreign Secretary has adumbrated today, does he not think that it is now time for the Government to apologise for the dodgy dossier, which misled the House on Iraq in the first place?

Jack Straw: No, because that dossier—the one published on 24 September last year—has been shown, after very careful scrutiny by the Intelligence and Security Committee, to be accurate in all material respects, as were the contents of the dossier published in February.

Michael Ancram: I welcome the new draft resolution, and I hope that, this time, it will secure the support of the Security Council, including from France.
	On a slightly different matter, has the Foreign Secretary discussed with Secretary Powell the information on the basis of which the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee on 8 July that he had
	"absolutely no doubt that we will find evidence of"
	weapons of mass destruction
	"programmes"—
	later explained by his official spokesman as
	"including concrete evidence of the product of these programmes as well".
	Where is that evidence, which has apparently so far eluded the international survey group? Or should we put as much faith in the Prime Minister's assertions on weapons of mass destruction as in his now totally discredited assertion—as we learned yesterday—that he had nothing to do with the naming of Dr. Kelly?

Jack Straw: I think that that is one of the more incredible observations that I have heard from those on the Conservative Front Bench, given their position on 18 March. I think I am going to buy the right hon. Gentleman a pair of open sandals and a false beard, and he can join the Liberal Democrats.

Ann Clwyd: I want to pay tribute to the chief police adviser in Iraq, who is British, and the role being played by Britain in retraining the Iraqi police. The visible evidence of police on the streets of places such as Baghdad sends a very important signal to the Iraqi people, but at the same time the chief police adviser says that he cannot continue to operate unless he gets more personnel. When does my right hon. Friend intend to strengthen the number of British advisers and support staff for that post?

Jack Straw: When I saw the report this morning in respect of the comments by Deputy Chief Constable White, I asked for them to be investigated, and I am still pursuing that. Meanwhile, I can tell my hon. Friend that I understand that, from this week, DCC White will be supported in his work by six Ministry of Defence police officers. However, my investigations into his anxieties continue, and I will place before the House the results of those inquiries and write to my hon. Friend about them.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House his best estimate of the cost of the United Kingdom involvement in Iraq, by which I mean incurred cost, promised costs and anticipated costs? Can we have a total figure? If the Foreign Secretary does not have one to hand, a letter put in the Library would be most helpful.

Jack Straw: I have not got the figure to hand, but I will do better than asked: I will publish a written ministerial statement on the record. I was very pleased to announce yesterday that we will make available a further Euro550 million at the forthcoming donors' conference in Madrid at the end of next week.

Uganda

Valerie Davey: What plans he has for the United Kingdom to have a mediation role in resolving the conflict in northern Uganda.

Chris Mullin: We do not consider that there is a role for UK mediation at this stage, nor has the Ugandan Government requested it. We are, however, providing support to a number of civil society groups engaged on peace issues, including the Acholi religious leaders, who we believe are best placed to act as mediators. We will continue to work with our development partners in urging both the Government and Lord's Resistance Army to demonstrate their commitment to dialogue. We welcome President Museveni's reaffirmation of his readiness for dialogue during his independence day speech on 9 October.

Valerie Davey: May I thank my hon. Friend for his and the Government's commitment to northern Uganda? In the light of the increasingly violent and volatile situation reported again only this week, can he say what opportunity remains for the international community to take some action?

Chris Mullin: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to what is an extremely serious situation in northern Uganda. The prospect of peace in Sudan, which the LRA often uses as a safe haven, will make it easier to put pressure on that organisation. We are also anxious to encourage dialogue between the Government of Uganda and the LRA, which is rather difficult given that the LRA does not have negotiable demands. That is the only way forward, however, because, as my hon. Friend knows, a military solution has been tried, and it has not worked—it has only led to a great deal more suffering. We continue to remain closely engaged with both the Ugandan Government and the Acholi leaders, and our high commissioner is in northern Uganda today.

Richard Ottaway: Does the Minister agree that, in effect, the conflict in northern Uganda is between the Islamic values of the Sudan and the Christian values of Uganda? What we are seeing there is a microcosm of the conflict between the two religions that we find elsewhere in the world.

Chris Mullin: I had not heard that explanation of the difficulties in northern Uganda. It is a very serious and complex situation, but it would be difficult for followers of any religion to justify the terrible atrocities that the LRA has been carrying out against innocent people in northern Uganda.

Tom Clarke: I have just returned from a visit with the all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention, and I declare the appropriate interest. May I say that there was a great regard for the role of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in seeking to influence Uganda and Rwanda in particular towards peace? That influence was never more necessary if genocide and conflict is to be avoided.

Chris Mullin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. We all understand that a great deal more work remains to be done before we see peace and the rule of law restored to that area, but there has been some progress.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister is right, of course, to condemn the LRA. He will be aware that it has abducted something of the order of 20,000 children in northern Uganda over the last five years. He will also be aware, however, that President Museveni has requested that signals intelligence and other intelligence aid be provided to the Government and army of Uganda to assist them in their fight to protect the people of Uganda from that terrible terrorist organisation. What precisely are the Government doing, or what will they do, to assist President Museveni and the people of Uganda?

Chris Mullin: We have already done a great deal as regards helping Uganda to recover from the dreadful situation that President Museveni inherited when he took office some years ago, and he is the first to acknowledge that. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will expect me to get involved with the precise details of any military assistance that we are giving to Uganda, but I repeat what I said earlier: ultimately, there is no military solution. Some way will have to be found of establishing contact with the LRA and of putting an end to this dreadful rebellion. The military solution has been tried, but it has not worked.

Afghanistan

David Cairns: What assessment he has made of the size of this year's poppy harvest in Afghanistan.

Bill Rammell: The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has not yet published the results of its 2003 poppy cultivation survey in Afghanistan. However, we would expect the results to be broadly similar to last year, with a small increase in both production and cultivation likely. That is in line with expectations based on previous experience in Thailand and Pakistan and our own expectations. We want to do more, however, to engage the international community in countering narcotics in Afghanistan. To that end, we will be organising a major international conference in Kabul in early 2004.

David Cairns: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's answer and look forward to the publication of that report later this month. Does he agree that two things need to happen? First, there must be targeted assistance to Afghan farmers to wean them off this horrible crop, and secondly—and more importantly—ISAF's mandate must now be extended beyond Kabul, which, as we have heard, is relatively secure, and out to the provinces and regions of Afghanistan, which is where the poppies are actually grown and where the will of the warlords, not that of the international community, holds sway? We can only smash the trade once and for all if we do that.

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and pay tribute to his long-standing work in this area. He is absolutely right that, as well as the other activities that we undertake, we need to pursue the matter of alternative livelihoods. If we are to persuade farmers in Afghanistan to move away from poppy production, they will need an alternative source of livelihood, so we need to work on that. I also agree with my hon. Friend about the security situation beyond Kabul. Clearly, the security situation has been better in Kabul, and yesterday's announcement at the Security Council, for which we pushed strongly, to extend ISAF's remit beyond Kabul to the outlying regions is significant, and indicative of a step change in our efforts that will undoubtedly help to beef up our counter-narcotics activity.

Bob Spink: What help will the Government give to neighbouring countries such as Kazakhstan to cut off the supply route of the drugs?

Bill Rammell: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point because we have a 10-year strategy to eradicate poppy production in Afghanistan, but if that simply results in cultivation in other countries, we need to address that issue. The matter is being examined in great detail by the cross-departmental Whitehall international drugs taskforce. We are also committing significant funding to some neighbouring countries to help the effort.

Jackie Lawrence: The Minister will be aware that one of the main drug smuggling routes is north through Osh in the Kyrgyz Republic. At the conference that he mentioned, will he discuss ways in which the UK could help the Kyrgyz Republic to tackle its border security problems and give advice, help, training and assistance with its communications system to help the Kyrgyz Government to close their border to drug smuggling, which inevitably has an impact on Europe and the UK?

Bill Rammell: My hon. Friend raises a valid and interesting point. We clearly need not only to tackle poppy cultivation in Afghanistan but to consider carefully how drugs are taken abroad and what the trafficking routes are. Interdiction at border areas—the Kyrgyz Republic is a key area—is important and we need to do more to cut off those routes.

European Constitution

David Atkinson: What the Government's policy is on the proposed incorporation of the European charter of fundamental rights in the draft European constitution.

Denis MacShane: The draft EU constitutional treaty explicitly states that the charter does not extend EU competences and makes it clear that the charter applies primarily to the EU institutions. The charter would apply to member states only when they are implementing EU law. The Government will reach a final decision about incorporation of the charter in the context of the intergovernmental conference.

David Atkinson: Does the Minister recall that his predecessor, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), told the House that the EU charter of fundamental rights would have no more legal significance than a copy of the Beano? Why does it now form article 6 of the EU draft constitution and threaten to undermine the Human Rights Act 1998 in this country and the authority of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the European convention on human rights? Will Britain veto the EU charter of fundamental rights at the intergovernmental conference?

Denis MacShane: I read the Beano many years ago—I especially read about the character Dennis the Menace. However, I must say that Desperate Dave—or Desperate Dan—from Bournemouth is at the end of his wits. Article 9 of the charter of fundamental rights supports the family, article 10 supports the right to religion, article 16 supports the right to conduct a business and article 17 supports the right to own property. When I was reading the Beano, the Conservative party supported property, believed in business, loved the family and went to church. Now that we have European rules to introduce that into our law, it should support the sound and conservative charter. Conservative Members have been overtaken by malevolent forces that have driven them toward a fanatical anti-European position, which does them no credit at all.

Terry Davis: But given that it is more than two years since Members drew the Government's attention to the risk of conflicting judgments by two courts based on the same facts affecting human rights, when will they get to grips with the issue?

Denis MacShane: My right hon. Friend, who refers to the European Court of Human Rights and who plays a distinguished role at the Council of Europe, is right to draw attention to the fact that there are now three ways in which such law is declared: in the European Court of Human Rights, by our incorporation of the European convention on human rights into British law and as a result of the charter of fundamental rights. It is important to realise that the charter applies to EU institutions. It will not replace the French or German constitution. It is clear that the horizontal articles—this is technical language—under articles 51 and 52 maintain the rights of countries to carry on their own business in terms of national law. I am certainly not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and condemn an important set of principles that the vast majority of European citizens—except perhaps those on the Conservative Benches—will welcome and support.

Michael Ancram: Does not the incorporation of the charter of fundamental rights constitute a fundamental change to the relationship between the European Union and its member states? By the Government's own criteria, should not its inevitable incorporation, which they now appear to support, trigger a referendum to secure the consent of the British people before it is ratified?

Denis MacShane: No.

Michael Ancram: I am astounded by that answer from someone who proclaims himself a European. Why cannot the Minister agree with French Premier Raffarin, who this week said:
	"a real European cannot not want a referendum",
	or President Chirac, who said that a referendum
	"would be the only legitimate way",
	or the Spanish, Portuguese, Danes and the Irish, who are going to allow their people to decide? Why do the Government have such contempt for the intelligence of the British people that they will not allow us to decide? Why do they not come clean and allow us to have a referendum now?

Denis MacShane: It is a pleasure to hear the right hon. Gentleman pray in aid France in an argument for the first time during his tenure of office as shadow Foreign Secretary. President Chirac has not made up his mind. The majority of EU nations do not intend to hold referendums at the moment. However, there is a fundamental divide between those of us who will defend the right of Parliament and the House of Commons to debate and ratify international treaties and those who want to tear up 500 years of British parliamentary history to hold their populist plebiscite. The right hon. Gentleman can splutter as much as he wants, but until he removes the malevolent forces that have made the Conservative party a byword for hostility to Europe—even if today he praises France in passing—his party will not be taken seriously ever again.

George Foulkes: Surely everyone, including the shadow Foreign Secretary, should welcome the extension of human rights provision to the United Kingdom, especially for those who are being persecuted? Will the Minister admit, however, that that will offer no protection for Tory MPs invited by their Chief Whip for career development interviews?

Denis MacShane: Article II.52.4 says:
	"Insofar as this Charter recognises fundamental rights . . . these rights shall be interpreted in harmony with those traditions."
	The trouble is that the Conservative party once believed in human rights and the rule of law internationally, and supported Europe. It is the malevolent forces that now control it that make the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) stand on his head because he is a closet European. It is time he came out of his closet and let his party reconnect with the British people, who will never vote for the manic anti-Europeanism that the Conservative party represents.

Richard Shepherd: But there is a serious point, which the Minister touched on, concerning the competence of the European Court of Human Rights, as opposed to judgments that will be made on the European constitution's charter of fundamental rights. Which one will prevail when it comes to the areas of direct conflict of competence?

Denis MacShane: That point was well raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). To anyone who knows how Europe works, the answer is fairly clear. The European Court of Human Rights hands down its judgments from Strasbourg. The European Court of Justice will be charged with implementing and upholding European Union law. As I said, the charter of fundamental rights applies to EU institutions. It will not tear up domestic constitutions, domestic law and so on. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that France, Germany or almost any EU member state with its own constitution will allow those to be overridden or abolished, he does not understand how Europe works. We want a charter of fundamental rights incorporated on terms that we are happy with, in a way that upholds the principles and values that the House has always held dear.

Gisela Stuart: The charter of fundamental rights will protect religious institutions and the relationship between church and state. Assuming that the IGC can find a formulation that would allow the British Government to accept the incorporation of the charter, can my hon. Friend confirm that we would consequently and subsequently see no further reference to God or Christianity in the preamble? That would be not only inappropriate, but unnecessary.

Denis MacShane: There is no reference to God or Christianity in the preamble. There is a reference, I think, to the important religious and humanist traditions that have shaped our common European home. The Government believe that we should leave it at that.

Iran

David Ruffley: What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Iran about their civil nuclear programme; and if he will make a statement.

Jack Straw: I spoke most recently to the Iranian Foreign Minister about nuclear matters on 3 October. The United Kingdom Government have frequent contact with the Government of Iran on this subject, and we have made clear our serious concerns. We have also made clear our wish that Iran should maintain complete transparency about its nuclear programme, and comply fully with the demands set out in the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors resolution on 12 September.

David Ruffley: The IAEA has imposed a strict deadline of 31 October by which Iran must fully disclose the nature and extent of its uranium enrichment programme, yet the Iranian ambassador to the agency has refused to recognise that deadline as binding. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore confirm that if Iran does not comply, he will continue to rule out the threat of military sanctions of any kind against Iran?

Jack Straw: We wish to see the matter resolved peacefully. I will not predict what will happen, except to say that we have adopted a consistent approach in respect of Iran. It was partly through our action that we were able to secure a consensus resolution 34:1—a tough resolution—in the IAEA board in mid-September. Dr. el-Baradei, the head of the agency, is going back to Iran to ensure that the Iranians comply with the demands made by the board. We look forward to his report to the IAEA board, which is to be made on 7 November.

Jon Owen Jones: On the subject of consistency, the British position with regard to Iran may be consistent, but how is it consistent for the United States to threaten action against Iran for developing nuclear power, while at the same time covertly helping Israel develop marine-launched nuclear weapons?

Jack Straw: The Government of the United States supported the IAEA resolution that was passed in mid-September, which, with the full support of the US Government, recognised the basic and inalienable right of all member states to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes. That is not the issue here.

Mark Prisk: Given the recent reports that Russia is supplying various elements of nuclear technology to Iran, what representations have the Government made to ensure that we do not find ourselves on a collision course with Russia, and to ensure that Russia is making a positive contribution to a crucial issue?

Jack Straw: I had positive and constructive discussions about exactly that matter with my Russian opposite number, Igor Ivanov, in a bilateral meeting at the United Nations General Assembly in New York three weeks ago. Russia voted for the IAEA resolution in mid-September. We are working very closely with our European Union partners, the United States and Russia to ensure that that consensus is maintained.

Liberia

Russell Brown: If he will make a statement on the situation in Liberia.

Chris Mullin: Liberia has suffered more than a decade of bloody civil war. There is now a comprehensive peace agreement; Charles Taylor has gone; and UN peacekeepers have been deployed. The new transitional national Government is being inaugurated today. We welcome those important steps, but there is still much work to be done.

Russell Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. I hope that he agrees that the degree of US military force that we witnessed during August was welcome. Is there anything that he can do to urge the Bush Administration to remain committed to the peace process in Liberia?

Chris Mullin: My hon. Friend is right that the presence in August of United States troops, albeit mainly offshore, was very helpful in stabilising Liberia. We are in no doubt that the Americans remain committed. Indeed, they have made a substantial contribution to the costs of the humanitarian effort and of funding some of the other peace forces that are involved in the UN operation that has already started.

Sydney Chapman: The Minister will know that 15,000 UN troops are stationed in Liberia and that under the peace agreement elections should be held by 2005. Is it the intention to keep those troops, or a goodly proportion of them, in Liberia until the elections have been held?

Chris Mullin: So far, there are only about 4,500 UN troops in Liberia, but their number should go up to about 15,000 by March next year. The intention is that all or most of them should be kept there until the country has stabilised.

Hugh Bayley: What progress has been made on Kofi Annan's proposal to set up a college of peacekeeping studies in west Africa? Given that the plague of violence in west African states has spread, does my hon. Friend agree that the situation would be much better if the Economic Community of West African States was in a position to provide the region with peacekeeping troops of its own? What help will the British Government give to the initiative?

Chris Mullin: The Kofi Annan proposal is going ahead; I believe that it will be based in Ghana. My hon. Friend is right that it is a very important initiative, because the conflicts in west Africa are ultimately a west African problem that can best be solved by the intervention of well-trained west African troops. He can be assured that we shall support the initiative.

Diamond Trade

Stephen O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the role of the United Nations in ending the illegal trade in diamonds in Africa.

Bill Rammell: The United Nations has helped to break the link in Africa between illicit sales of rough diamonds and armed conflict through a combination of embargoes on the diamond trade and the deployment of peacekeeping operations in countries such as Angola, Liberia and Sierra Leone, as well as through several resolutions in support of the Kimberley process certification scheme for rough diamonds—a scheme that this Government pushed for strongly.

Stephen O'Brien: The Minister will have read the UN report on the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that was published a full year ago in October 2002. Does he agree that the trade in so-called dirty diamonds is one of the greatest evils blighting large parts of the African continent? Can he therefore assure the House that if there is any evidence of a British person being involved in that evil trade, firm and effective action will immediately be taken to deal with that person and that trade?

Bill Rammell: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the diamond trade—that is why we have initiated and supported the Kimberley diamond process certification scheme. I believe that he refers to the Democratic Republic of the Congo expert panel on natural resources. If substantiated evidence comes forward, we shall investigate it and take action. We remain willing to investigate the panel's allegation when such evidence becomes available. I understand that further information and analysis is expected in the panel's next report in late October. One of the worries about the process is the time it takes the United Nations committee to come up with substantiating evidence.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Minister knows that attempts to stop the trade will be strongly supported in the House. However, does he agree that it is vital that the genuine trade of African countries that produce diamonds and are utterly dependent on that is not damaged? Such damage is unacceptable.

Bill Rammell: I understand and share my hon. Friend's concern. That is why the Kimberley process certification scheme has been structured as it has, with the participation of the African states. It ensures that the legitimate diamond trade can continue to provide resources and funds to help rebuild those countries that so desperately need it.

European Constitution

Ann Winterton: If he will consult the people of the United Kingdom on the draft European constitution.

Denis MacShane: Yes.

Ann Winterton: It appears that only Ministers believe that the European Union constitution will not affect the sovereignty and integrity of the United Kingdom as a nation state. Most people believe the opposite. When will the Government, who have not hitherto shied away from referendums, stop being so arrogant, hold a referendum on this vital issue and let the people decide?

Denis MacShane: Most people who have examined the draft constitutional treaty, including most of those on the continent, accept that it constitutes a good result for Britain. I congratulate the Convention members who took part in the process. I am confident that the final constitutional treaty that is brought to the House will strengthen the role of the nation state and Britain's standing in Europe. However, I also firmly believe—that is why I was elected to the House—that Parliament should debate and determine such matters.

Nick Palmer: Does the Minister agree that, in practice, we cannot reject the proposed constitution without casting doubt on the European Union's ability to operate in its expanded form, and that rejection would therefore call into question our membership of the European Union?

Denis MacShane: Clearly, my hon. Friend has a point. However, the rules exist and if the constitutional treaty is not ratified by any one of the 25 member states, we shall carry on as before. Undoubtedly, all the incoming states—our friends—want the constitutional treaty to be ratified and operated. One of the saddest aspects of the debate is the way in which the malevolent forces that control the Conservative party's European politics have sent their key henchmen into east Europe to campaign against enlargement. We want an enlarged Europe that works. The constitutional treaty, when it is finally negotiated, should therefore be brought to the House, where I hope that hon. Members will overwhelmingly support it.

Angus Robertson: Will the Minister for Europe confirm that only five days remain for European Union member states to table amendments to non-institutional questions in the planned European Union constitution? What questions will the United Kingdom Government table? Will they involve fishing or will the UK Government allow it to become entrenched as an exclusive competence in the European Union?

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman mentions fishing, which is of great concern to his constituents, every time the wider issues of Europe are raised. However, he is wrong. We are in an intergovernmental conference—a solemn treaty negotiation between 25 independent, sovereign nation states. Until the last moment, Governments can table whatever matters they want to be decided. That is why it is important to work constructively with our partners and drop primitive anti-Europeanism, which causes great dismay to parties throughout Europe that expect Britain to be a leader in Europe, helping to run it.

Chris Bryant: May I urge my hon. Friend not to listen to the rabid rantings of the Conservatives, and in particular of the Leader of the Opposition, who last week gave a good performance as Neville Chamberlain on acid—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Zimbabwe

Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the current situation in Zimbabwe.

Chris Mullin: The situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate. Last month saw the closure of the only independent daily newspaper, and last week saw the arrest of up to 200 trade unionists for peacefully demonstrating. As this year's meagre crop runs out, half the population will depend on food aid. The Zimbabwean people continue to struggle with hyper-inflation, mass unemployment, and shortages of cash, food and fuel. The source of the problem is clear: bad governance and bad policies. We will continue to support all those working for peaceful change in Zimbabwe and a return to democracy, accountable government and respect for human rights.

Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Minister for that very full reply. Does he not think, however, that the disaster of Zimbabwe is going to become the forgotten tragedy of Africa, particularly as the Inter-Parliamentary Union—which has apparently decided not to hold its conference here next year—is to permit people on the list of those who are not supposed to travel internationally to attend its next conference? Is that not an absolute disaster? What will the Government do to save the people of Zimbabwe from further suffering?

Chris Mullin: With all due respect, there is not the slightest danger of Zimbabwe becoming a forgotten tragedy. Hardly a day goes by when the subject does not pass through my in-tray one way or the other, and we continue to pursue the issue very seriously indeed, as I hope I made clear in my original reply. As for the IPU conference, it was due to be held here but it is now not going to be, as a result of the Government sticking firmly to their policy.

Member Sworn

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
	Sarah Teather, for Brent, East.

Ministry of Peace

John McDonnell: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Ministry of Peace with the function of promoting conflict resolution and the avoidance of military conflict.
	The Bill aims to establish a Ministry of Peace, a new Government Department whose sole purpose would be to focus the resources of Government on the promotion of peace and the eventual abolition of war. Let me explain briefly the genesis of the Bill. The history of the last millennium can be viewed as a search by humanity for peace and security. At first, that search was individual, pursued by individuals entering society to seek security and protection under nations, in the context of what the philosopher Thomas Hobbes described as
	"the war of all against all".
	The next stage of this ceaseless search for peace was the societal attempt to gain safety from aggression between nations through the construction of treaties. Far from avoiding conflict, the treaty system produced the greatest war the world had experienced, which was fought at such human cost in the trenches of Flanders.
	From the battlefields of the first world war came the next stage in the pursuit of peace—the foundation of the League of Nations. That first halting attempt to construct a permanent international structure for securing peace floundered in the face of fascist aggression and the ambiguity of the support of the League's founding nations. Nevertheless, it placed on the post-second world war agenda the potential for creating global structures for peace, resulting in the launch of the United Nations, with the aim, made explicit in its founding charter, of saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war. Tragically, since that time, 120 wars have been fought in which more than 25 million people have been killed and 75 million injured. Increasingly the victims of war are non-combatants.
	That stark evidence demands that, in this new millennium, humanity move on to a new stage in its search for peace. The first inkling of this new approach has tentatively emerged over the past decade from the intensive deliberations of the thousands of organisations and individuals who participated in the construction of the Hague agenda for peace and justice in the 21st century.
	The Hague appeal recognised that the traditional approaches to preventing war and creating the conditions of permanent peace had largely failed, with disastrous consequences. A fundamentally new approach needs to embrace the roles of individuals, civil society, national Governments and supranational institutions, in creating the conditions for guaranteeing peace. Above all else, the Hague appeal is a proclamation that war is not some elemental, climactic force that can defy all control, but something which, being created and prosecuted by mankind, can therefore be eliminated by mankind.
	The Hague peace process has engaged in a forensic examination of the root causes of war, and a discussion and promotion of the concrete actions that could be taken to prevent and, ultimately, eliminate war. That approach advocates the use of "soft power" paths, early intervention to identify the possible sources of conflict, and the use of education, negotiation, coalition building and reconciliation as the means of conflict resolution, which ultimately results in the replacement of the law of force with the force of law.
	The Hague process urged the reform of supranational bodies such as the United Nations to enable the realisation of their global potential for securing permanent peace. In September, a draft statute was published to promote a United Nations commission for peace and crisis prevention, with the remit of strengthening the UN's role
	"in the peaceful resolution of conflicts and supporting the worldwide strengthening of peace work, peace education and peace research."
	In that context, we need to consider the reform not only of international structures, but structures of national Government to respond to this new peace agenda. To their immense credit, the Government have already gone some way in restructuring to promote conflict prevention and resolution. In a little publicised measure in 2001, the Government set up United Kingdom global and African conflict prevention pools. That initiative brought together the conflict prevention work of a series of Government Departments under an interdepartmental committee of Ministers to increase the Government's overall impact in reducing the number of people around the world whose lives are affected by violent conflict.
	This Bill builds on that Government initiative. It proposes that we take the next step in strengthening the Government's role in promoting peace by giving greater authority and profile to this work through the establishment of a Ministry of Peace. This is a paving Bill, giving the Government the authority of Parliament to undertake a comprehensive consultation on the potential for establishing a Ministry of Peace. It proposes that the Government report back to Parliament within a designated period, following consultation with statutory bodies, relevant non-governmental organisations, religious groups and the general public.
	A Ministry of Peace would perform the following core roles. First, it would provide within Government an expertise in non-violent conflict resolution, through which Government could be advised on how policies can be developed across Government to reduce the potential for conflict. Secondly, it would provide and co-ordinate the application of Government resources to foster greater understanding in Britain and the world of how war can be avoided and peace achieved.
	Let me give some practical examples of what a Ministry of Peace could accomplish. If we are to achieve peace, we must understand conflict—how it occurs, and how it can be prevented. A Ministry of Peace would support and promote a renaissance of research in this country into the causes and impacts of conflict, monitoring potential areas of conflict and advancing practical techniques to avoid outbreaks of violence before they arise. That includes identifying the potential for conflict over the scarcity or maldistribution of natural resources, the impact of human rights abuses as a cause of conflict, the potential for reducing and eliminating the arms trade and demonstrating the potential of a variety of techniques for conflict resolution and effective community peace-building activities.
	A Ministry of Peace would examine how we can undermine the culture of conflict that has grown up in our society at every level, so that Government could use their resources to educate our children and raise the consciousness of our communities and our international partners to ensure that mediation becomes the automatic response to a problem rather than violence, in the playground or on the battlefield. Our domestic and international policies would be prefaced and tested by the central question of whether they reduce conflict and violence or increase the risk.
	Establishing a Ministry of Peace would put the pursuit of peace at the heart of Government. In future, Prime Ministers and Cabinets would be required demonstrably to consult the Ministry of Peace in the event of an impending military conflict, and Ministers across Government would draw on its expertise in the negotiation of international treaties and agreements.
	The Bill envisages the establishment of a commission for peace to mobilise the depth of commitment in society, consisting of independent experts in the field drawn together to provide the Ministry of Peace with support and advice on best practice, monitor its activities and report to Parliament on its performance. A peace audit commission could thus engage members of our community in this venture for peace.
	If nothing else, the war in Iraq demonstrated starkly the need for a new way to resolve the world's conflicts. Yes, the idea of a Ministry of Peace is idealistic, but it is not unrealistic. The concept is catching the wind of political interest in the United States Congress—a similar Bill has been promoted by Dennis Kucinich—and in the peace movement across China and Japan, and elsewhere. A debate is taking place among the people as well as in Governments.
	Given cross-party support for the Bill, we could begin the process of transforming the modern world's first imperial power into the world's leading peace power. Too much depends on our success for us to fail. I urge Members to support the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by John McDonnell, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mr. John Randall, Dr. Rudi Vis, Alan Simpson, Jeremy Corbyn, Mrs. Alice Mahon and Mr. Kelvin Hopkins.

Ministry of Peace

John McDonnell accordingly presented a Bill to establish a Ministry of Peace with the function of promoting conflict resolution and the avoidance of military conflict: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 163].

Orders of the Day

Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
	 — 
	New Clause 1
	 — 
	Driver Licensing Information

'Information held in any form—by the Secretary of State under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), or (b) by the Department of the Environment under Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I.1)), (licensing of drivers of vehicles) may be disclosed for the purposes of the Schengen information systems (within the meaning of section 81)';—[Caroline Flint.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 33, in clause 57, page 38, line 25, at end insert
	'or in any other State in which the offender has temporarily resided'.

Caroline Flint: As we embark on today's business, I hope that we have all recovered from the party conference season. The insertion of the new clause after clause 81 will provide the necessary statutory authority for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland to enter data required for Schengen purposes on the UK's national section of the Schengen information system. That will ensure that the UK meets the requirements of its Schengen application in relation to the SIS.
	The statutory gateway already contained in section 71 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, allowing disclosure of information held by the Secretary of State for the purposes of part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, is not sufficient for the UK's Schengen obligations. It allows information to be disclosed for use by constables only and, in limited circumstances, for further disclosure by them. Furthermore, section 71 does not extend to driving licences issued in Northern Ireland.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I would be very interested to know when the decision was taken to include such greatly expanded information, which carries with it considerable implications. Anyone holding a licence for any vehicle in the United Kingdom now runs the very real risk of that information being transmitted to a foreign Government without their permission.

Caroline Flint: It is necessary to legislate through insertion of the new clause because the sharing of data on driving licences for the purpose of the SIS is not within the scope of existing legislation. There is no power to disclose information that has been collected under statute—in this case, the 1988 Act—for purposes not covered by statute. Section 71 of the 2000 Act does allow for the disclosure of information held by the Secretary of State for the purpose of part 3 of the 1988 Act, but that is not sufficient for Schengen. That is for use by constables only, with limited provision for further disclosure by constables. Our Schengen obligations are wider than that, encompassing various enforcement agencies in the UK and other states. Furthermore, section 71 does not cover driving licences issued in Northern Ireland. We have therefore drafted a new clause that provides the necessary statutory power to disclose information. Such disclosure is expressly limited to the purposes of the SIS.

John Bercow: rose—

Gwyneth Dunwoody: rose—

Caroline Flint: If I may, I should like to finish.
	The SIS is defined in clause 81 of the Bill, and these additional arrangements will be subject to the same data protection arrangements as apply to the national section of the SIS in general. The arrangements will allow the office of the Information Commissioner to inspect all data contained on the UK national section of the SIS to ensure that the processing of personal data is in compliance with processing requirements under the existing legislation. It is the right of any individual about whom incorrect information is placed on the SIS to apply for it to be removed or corrected. It has always been the case that such information would be on the SIS; it was realised only at a late stage that existing statutory provisions were not adequate.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend is confirming precisely what I said: that this power did not exist and needs to be written into new legislation. At what point was the House of Commons made aware that these commitments under Schengen had been fully accepted? As I understood it, we had not fully accepted them. Is my hon. Friend saying that we now accept all the implications of Schengen? If so, this is a matter of considerable interest. At what point did we decide to ask the House whether this information should be passed on?

Caroline Flint: As I said, it was realised at a late stage that existing statutory provision was not adequate. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Caroline Flint: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is for that reason that we are introducing the new clause—so that we can make good progress in realising the UK's connection to the SIS, which is envisaged for November 2004. Before we receive live data, the UK's implementing of the SIS will undergo a rigorous evaluation, conducted by partner member states. To fulfil the requirements of the evaluation process, we must demonstrate our ability to place the required data on the SIS. It has been clear since the then Home Secretary made a statement in March 1999 that we would opt into those parts of the Schengen information system. By introducing the new clause, we hope to meet our obligations in that regard, and I can add nothing further to that picture.

John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint: No, I have answered the question—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way with her customary courtesy, albeit on this occasion after a little pressure. Further to the interventions of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I recognise that the Under-Secretary has a departmental brief to which she wishes to adhere, and I intend no discourtesy, but does she understand that if our profession is ever again to regain public respect, we need public understanding? I appeal to her in the context of new clause 1 and amendment No. 33 to make her speech self-contained and intelligible to members of the public who will be interested to know about the impact on them of what she is describing.

Caroline Flint: I did try to explain those particular circumstances. As I said, it has always been the case that this sort of information would be on the Schengen information system. As I also said, we realised at a late stage that existing statutory provision did not apply to those circumstances. The aim is to make use of information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and from Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland to enter data required for Schengen purposes. I have already fully explained that.
	Let me now deal with amendment No. 33, which relates to part 3 of the Bill on driving disqualification. Clause 57(2) reflects the requirement in the EU convention on driving disqualifications to take account, when calculating the period to be enforced in the UK, of any period of disqualification already served in the state of the offence. That is to ensure that the total period of disqualification served does not exceed that originally imposed in the state of the offence.
	The amendment would require that any period of disqualification served in another member state in which an offender temporarily resided be also taken into account in determining the period of disqualification to be enforced in the UK. I hope that I have explained that clearly.
	The amendment is flawed because a disqualification of a non-resident driver by one country does not automatically have effect in another country. Under the EU convention, only the offender's normal state of residence will be notified of a foreign disqualification and be required to enforce it. For the purposes of the convention, the state of residence is the place where the driver is resident for at least 185 days in each calendar year. If an offender is not normally resident in the UK, the authorities here will not be informed of the disqualification. The only consideration, therefore, in determining the unexpired period of a foreign disqualification will be how much of the disqualification the driver served in the state that convicted him.
	A driver who is disqualified abroad may lawfully continue driving anywhere outside the state that convicted him until his own state of residence has enforced the disqualification under the EU convention. So the opportunity to serve a period of disqualification as a temporary resident in another state will not arise. Once he has been disqualified by his state of residence, he loses his entitlement to drive anywhere because his licence has been removed. After disqualification takes effect in the UK, the driver will remain disqualified in the UK until the end of the period of disqualification—regardless of whether he resides temporarily in another member state during that period. To that end, I urge support for new clause 1 and oppose the amendment.

James Paice: First, in response to her welcome to the Opposition, I welcome the hon. Lady back after her party conference. I did indeed enjoy our conference, which was not at all like the one that I read about in the newspapers. Obviously there were, two conferences going on in Blackpool last week.
	The new clause clearly undermines, as did the interventions of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the whole thrust of the legislation, which is to reverse into Schengen without proper parliamentary scrutiny of the issues. That was exposed on Second Reading, and the new clause adds a further small element to the Bill. It is not that important on its own, but the overall issue is of great importance. We are adopting a large chunk of the Schengen acquis without the House having proper opportunity to debate it.
	The Minister described the intent behind amendment No. 33 clearly, and I have some sympathy for her because the muddle on the issue was not of her making. It was the responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who dealt with the issue in Committee. Instead of clarifying the issue, he confused it even more. He kindly wrote to me and other members of the Committee at the end of June to try to clarify the issue, but the letter served only to complicate it further. The Minister has made a better job today, despite it not being her departmental responsibility, than did the Minister in Committee.

John Bercow: What was his effort like, then?

James Paice: I am about to tell my hon. Friend. In Committee, the Minister said:
	"I am advised that disqualification cannot be served in the other country—it can be served only in the state of the offence."
	A few minutes later, he said:
	"I am advised that if a UK resident . . . was disqualified from driving in France, he would be disqualified everywhere because he would have no UK licence."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 June 2003; c. 231–2.]
	In the letter that the Minister sent to members of the Committee, he said:
	"The driver loses his entitlement to drive elsewhere as a result of being disqualified in his State of residence"—
	that is clear—
	"and his licence being taken away during his period of disqualification—but he is not disqualified as such in all other Member States."
	It seems obtuse to make a distinction between not being entitled to drive and being disqualified.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: That is disingenuous. If someone is disqualified in this country, it is well known that they can visit another European state, buy the requisite papers and reappear on British roads with—for example—an Italian licence.

James Paice: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I actually tried to be helpful to her earlier. Inadvertently, she has been helpful to me, because I seek clarification of the confusion.
	If we are to adhere to a mutual recognition of disqualification to drive across all the signatory states, an issue of common justice arises. It would receive huge public support if someone who had been disqualified for causing death by dangerous driving in one part of Europe were not allowed to return to this country and drive. That is a valid intellectual argument. If that is to happen, that is what should appear in the legislation, but it does not. If I understood the Minister correctly today, she said that if a British person was disqualified from driving in Germany—I use examples of countries for simplicity's sake and not with any malice aforethought—and then moved to France, the disqualification would not apply because France was not their normal place of residence. However, if that person moved back to Britain—perhaps years later—they would have to serve out that disqualification. The person could be disqualified in Germany for six months, live in Germany for three months, thus serving out three months of the disqualification, then live in France for five years, and then finally move back to Britain—their normal place of residence as a British citizen—and serve out another three months of disqualification. There does not seem to be any justice in that.
	I gave the example of a disqualified driver moving to France. Disqualification should continue after such a move. Amendment No. 33 contains the phrase "temporarily resided" for that reason. The Minister gave her definition of residence, but she ignored the fact that some disqualifications can last a long time. Some people may choose to move to a country and become normally resident there before they return to the UK and become normally resident here. I think that the Minister said that the required period was 170 days—

Caroline Flint: The period is 185 days.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister, but that is still only six months. A person disqualified for three or four years who has stayed only a few weeks in the country of disqualification could fulfil the 185-day requirement in two or three other countries. I do not want to exaggerate, but the Minister seems to be saying that that would not count.
	We need to establish mutual recognition of disqualification among all states. The present confusion has not been helped by the contributions of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport. I am sorry that he is not here to try to explain the matter. However, I hope that the Minister understands my point, which is that a disqualified person could cite one of several countries as his country of normal residence during the disqualified period. The amendment would enable the disqualification to run consecutively in whichever country the disqualified person moved to after the offence, and ensure that different approaches are not adopted in different parts of Europe or the signatory states. Otherwise, no one—not the disqualified person, nor any victims—would know the situation with regard to the disqualified person's licence.
	Amendment No. 33 is not the lead amendment in this group, and that means that I will not be able to respond to the Minister's reply other than by way of intervention. However, I reserve the right to divide the House on the matter if I am not satisfied with the Minister's response.

David Heath: The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) was right to say that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), is not on the Treasury Bench this afternoon, and also to say that that Minister's presence would not have elucidated matters much this afternoon, given his performance in Committee. In parenthesis, it is a pity too that no Scottish Office Minister is here this afternoon, given that we shall be dealing with matters of Scots law later.
	I have no objection to what is proposed in the new clause, and that is why I have tabled no amendment to it. However, it is a little extraordinary that one of the prime purposes of the Bill should be covered by a provision that has been introduced so late. Secondly, I am worried that the new clause is effectively a free-standing provision in this Bill, and that there is no move to amend legislation covering road traffic, freedom of information or data protection. The degree of cross-reference is therefore limited. That structural problem in the statutes may come back to haunt us.
	Thirdly, I am worried that the information referred to in the new clause is not limited. The new clause covers any information held under the Road Traffic Act 1988, irrespective of what that information is. It is possible that that Act could be amended at some date in the future to include spurious information that could not properly be disclosed for the purposes of the Schengen information system.

Julian Lewis: Is it the hon. Gentleman's understanding of the new clause that only bits of driver information shall be disclosed as and when required, or that an entire database shall be fed into the system, to be dipped into as and when the Governments of other countries in Europe decide that it would be convenient for them to do so?

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The latter must clearly be the case. One of the concerns about the Schengen information system is that it grows exponentially; the database is large, with a huge number of points of access, in terms of both input and output, thereby allowing the grave danger that incorrect information may be held, with the individual citizen having only limited access to proper recourse.

Julian Lewis: I am new to this legislation, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that elucidation. The new clause thus seems to be saying that all the details held about us at DVLA in connection with our driving licences will be available, on tap, to any Government who sign up to the system.

David Heath: That is my understanding, but the Minister will be able to confirm the point far better than me.

Robert Smith: My question should perhaps be for the Minister rather than my hon. Friend, but can he tell us whether, if someone feels that the wrong information is held on the Schengen database, there is any way that they can seek redress and clarify the information?

David Heath: If my hon. Friend looks at the Bill, he will see that there is—through the data protection commissioner.

Caroline Flint: It is the right of any individual who has incorrect information about them placed on the SIS to apply for it to be removed or corrected.

David Heath: I thank the Minister for confirming my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith).
	Can the hon. Lady help me with what may be merely a printing matter? The new clause is set out in slightly odd way. I believe that the words
	"(licensing of drivers of vehicles)"
	should be attached to the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 rather than to the whole new clause. Can the Minister tell me whether that is the case? I assume that the rest of the provision refers to both (a) and (b), whereas the words in parenthesis apply only to (b) as, by definition, they are contained in the Road Traffic Act 1988.
	On amendment No. 33, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I tried desperately to get this point across in Committee. On re-reading my contribution to that debate, I think that it was even more confusing than the Minister's, so I shall not repeat what I said on that occasion. However, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire is on to a good point; surely, if we want disqualifications to be transportable across national borders within the EU, it makes sense that, wherever the individual against whom a disqualification applies is resident, the clock, in terms of natural justice, should still be ticking. It does not make sense for a person to move from one country to another and, at that point, for the term of disqualification to be put on hold—pending—until that person either returns to their country of origin or, curiously, moves to the UK, where the clock would start ticking again. That cannot be the Government's intention, so someone, somewhere, is being obtuse. As many people seem to agree with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, while few people agree with the Minister, we may be right.
	Our debates have displayed, almost throughout, the desire of the Opposition parties to improve the Bill and to make it work as the Government intend. I hope that we shall not engage in a dialogue of the deaf and that the Minister will accept the fact that we are trying to improve her Bill and to make it workable both practically and in terms of natural justice for those who are affected by it. Simply repeating that the Government disagree is not sufficient to answer the argument. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has a good point and it would as well if the Government listened to it.

Caroline Flint: To emphasise a point that I made earlier in relation to new clause 1, I wish to say that there have been a series of House of Lords inquiries into the UK's participation in the Schengen arrangements, and the decision to participate was subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill has provided a further chance to discuss the UK's participation in the Schengen arrangements. So there has been full discussion of the Bill's key provisions, including issues such as cross-border surveillance, which we will come to again later.
	I have been asked about those who are disqualified in the UK from driving who are then resident in another country. Let us say, for example, that they have British driving licences and that they are disqualified, but that they are living in France, the parameter for which is that they do so for at least 185 days in each calendar year. I understand that, in those circumstances, the clock would be ticking and the disqualification would obviously apply when they are living in France as well.
	We are trying to ensure that such things are understood not only where licences are issued and therefore where disqualification comes about, but where, given the days we live in, people reside in another EU country. If someone were temporarily moving around the EU, the disqualification would not apply in the same respect. If someone's UK driving licence is revoked, that will also apply in the country where they are resident. That should prevent them from driving anywhere. Certain procedures have to be gone through to get a licence in another country, and I imagine that that would be quite difficult to achieve. The disqualification will continue to run in the UK if the offender leaves the country to live in another member state. For these purposes, the offender must be resident abroad for at least 185 days in each calendar year.

James Paice: I appreciate that the Minister is trying to clarify these provisions, but let me pose an example. I appreciate that, if we go too far into examples, we get to specifics, so I shall stick to the example I used in my earlier remarks. Let us suppose that a British citizen commits an offence in Germany and is disqualified from driving by a German court, that he or she then moves to France to live for 180 days—six months—and then returns to Britain. The Minister seems to suggest that that person can drive in France, but that the disqualification, which started in Germany, will be in a state of hiatus until the offender returns to the UK, when the disqualification will be completed. Is my understanding right? I should not refer to this, but I am getting indications that I am right. If that is the case, is it not unjust that that person can continue to drive in France—it could be any other European country—with a hiatus in the period of disqualification, which then resumes when he or she returns to the UK?

Caroline Flint: If people are disqualified from driving and they have a UK licence, it will be revoked. Yes, someone can continue to drive before a foreign disqualification is recognised in the UK, as the disqualification only takes effect 21 days after the DVLA sends its notice of disqualification to the driver concerned. If UK citizens are disqualified in the UK and they move to France and then back to the UK, they are still disqualified in those circumstances.

James Paice: With respect to the Minister, I am talking not about someone who has been disqualified in this country—the law seems clear about that—but about those who are disqualified for having committed an offence elsewhere. What will happen if they live elsewhere before returning to this country?

Caroline Flint: My understanding is that if UK citizens are disqualified for offences in Germany, that is notified to the DVLA in this country and their licences are revoked. They are therefore disqualified from using those UK licences in France, as well as if they return to the UK—after all, they were UK licences to start with.
	Information in relation to drivers' licences is only provided, as for the Schengen convention, for limited purposes. It will only be the information that is on the driving licence. As I said previously, protection exists both in terms of our data commissioner and for individuals if they want to correct information that is there.

Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint: If I may, I shall continue for a moment.
	In relation to the point raised about Northern Ireland legislation, separate Northern Ireland legislation exists for holding driving licences, and it must therefore be covered in this new clause.

David Heath: I was not querying for one moment the inclusion of Northern Ireland. I was simply dealing with the printed word in front of us, and given that this is the Report stage, it is the last opportunity to correct it if it is typographically challenged. Will the Minister confirm my view that the words
	"(licensing of drivers of vehicles)"
	should immediately follow the previous reference in parentheses, "(S.I. 1981/154 (N.I.1))", without a comma, and that the comma should come after
	"licensing of drivers of vehicles)"
	to bring it into order? If I am wrong on that, I have misunderstood the construction of the clause. I think that that is logical, however, and given that it is important that we get it right, it would be good to change it. I do not know what we do about changing it other than doing so by manuscript amendment or simply accepting that it is a typographical error.

Caroline Flint: My understanding is that the new clause is sufficient as it stands, and we do not see any reason to change it for the purposes of our debate this afternoon.
	To return to the scenario in which the Germans regard an offender as normally resident in the UK, they will notify the UK authorities, who will enforce the disqualification. If the offender is normally resident in France, the French, not the UK, will enforce the disqualification. If a UK driver is disqualified in Germany and the driver stops off in France, he is not disqualified until the UK legislation bites. The convention does not allow Germany to notify France or France to disqualify the driver. What we are trying to introduce is a system that is understood both in the member state where a disqualification occurs and which also applies to countries where the individual is resident. I urge the House to accept the new clause and to resist amendment No. 33 for the reasons outlined.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Service of Overseas Process: Supplementary

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 25, after 'privileges', insert 'as a party or'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 35, in page 2, line 25, after 'a', insert
	'party to proceedings or as a'.
	No. 2, in page 3, line 11 [Clause 3], at end insert—
	'( ) must be accompanied by any translation provided under subsection 3'.
	No. 3, in page 3, line 23 [Clause 4], leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 24 and insert
	'by any method which is in accordance with Rules of Court'.
	No. 4, in page 4, line 19 [Clause 5], at end insert—
	'( ) must be accompanied by any translation provided under subsection 4'.

David Heath: This group deals with three separate concepts, so I shall deal with each one separately.
	The first relates to amendment No. 1. The more astute Member will notice that amendment No. 35 is extremely similar in effect, but my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael)—who, as we know, is learned in both Scots and Udal law—has suggested a variation that is in accord with the advice of the Law Society of Scotland. I am indebted to him for that, as it enables us to put two variations to the Minister. I hope that we will have more success than we had on previous occasions when we have discussed the matter.
	The crux of the matter is that it is important to insert in this section of the Bill the concept of a party to proceedings as well as a witness. If I may remind the House, this provision deals with the service of overseas process in this country and the point of the clause is to ensure that the person on whom overseas notice is served is aware of the consequences of that.
	Our difficulty is that the Government do not seem to recognise that there can be any category of a party to proceedings who is not a witness within the proceedings. That is self-evidently not the case. For example, it is clear that under this country's law and that of most countries, defendants cannot be compelled to give evidence as witnesses that would indicate their culpability. It is entirely possible that a defendant could be a party to a case but not a witness in that case. The same situation applies if spouses are accused of offences that also apply to their partners because the concept of spousal immunity is recognised by most legal systems in the relevant area.
	The problem is that there are clearly specific privileges that would accrue to defendants or spouses as defendants in such circumstances so that they would not be witnesses. It simply could not be the case that the privileges of a witness could be considered to include the privileges of not being a witness. That is nonsense in the English language, let alone anything else. We disagree not with the Government's intent but with the Bill's drafting. Clause 2 should include a reference to the privileges of a party to proceedings.
	Ministers have previously replied that such a provision is not necessary because anyone who is a party to proceedings is, by definition, a witness, but that is clearly not the case. Their second reply has been that clause 2(1) already deals with the situation, but it does not, because it simply identifies the area under discussion but does not apply to the process or the notice that should accompany that and the extent to which that covers the case.
	I ask the Minister to think again even at this late stage because I want to get the Bill right, which it is not at the moment. The defence that the provision was lifted from previous legislation and that it has never caused any problems is no defence at all. The assertion that it has not caused any problems should be followed by the word "yet", because as sure as eggs is eggs, someone will eventually find that something has been done incorrectly because of a lacuna in the law. That will provide a great deal of employment for lawyers but will be of no advantage to any person who will be affected by the Bill.
	The second and third concepts addressed by the amendments relate not to the service of overseas process—the heading of the group of amendments—but to the service of UK process overseas, which is the reciprocal, yet equally important, case. Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 relate to the translation that would be made available for a person who may be reasonably assumed not to speak English. There is no question about the Government's intent, but the Bill provides that whereas the court will be given a copy of the process in the relevant language, the person on whom the process is served will not. In a sensible world and in normal circumstances, the court would of course send the document to the person on whom the process had been served, but the Bill does not say that that must happen. It would be better if such a provision were included, which is all the amendments would do. Curiously enough, the provision applies elsewhere in the Bill. It is absurd that clause 3 states that a translation should be provided for the court yet includes no requirement for the translation to be provided to the one person involved in proceedings who does not understand the language in which the document was originally produced—English.
	Amendment No. 3 deals with the process of serving a UK notice overseas when that cannot be done by post. Clause 4(1) simply says that that should be
	"in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State."
	As I said in Committee, that dangerously imprecise term allows the Secretary of State to make up almost anything that he or she considers a sensible process. The British legal system has clear rules on that. Rules of court maintain a serving process that is fair to all. It is axiomatic that there should equally be rules of court that allow for service overseas.
	The Minister's objection in Committee was that such a provision could not be drafted to provide the flexibility for all the circumstances in which difficulties might be encountered in the serving process. I accept that we might make the terms more imprecise than the rules of court as they apply in the UK, by both definition and common consent, but the fact that the provision is not to be incorporated other than in guidance gives me cause for concern. Although the Minister has assured us that that will be forthcoming, it is not required by statute.
	The Bill is not satisfactory. Rules of court should apply in an overseas context as they would in a domestic serving process. I hope that the Minister has a good reason why that should not be the case.

James Paice: I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I hope the Minister realises that all Opposition parties are intent on making the Bill understandable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, by those whom it affects, and comprehensive so that it addresses problems that may arise even if the Government think that they will not. The amendments, especially those on translation, are designed to do just that.
	Those of us who have sat on both sides of the House have probably argued at one time or another both that it is necessary and that it is unnecessary to include something in a Bill. It is better to get legislation right first time rather than revisiting or correcting it later. I concur that the amendments are designed to get it right first time. They would not weaken the Bill or make it mean something else. They are simply designed to ensure that it is clearer and covers eventualities that may arise. I hope that the Minister will respond in a similar constructive vein and not simply read out the top line of her brief, which I have no doubt says, "Resist these amendments".

Caroline Flint: We have considered amendment No. 1 carefully and at length. We remain of the view that as a matter of law it is unnecessary. However, in the light of the concern about the issue, and because the amendment does not do any harm, we are prepared to accept it as drafted. We are satisfied that the amendment adds nothing to the clause as it is currently drafted and, indeed, will not result in a different position from that which currently exists under the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. I am happy to go on the record stating that to be our considered view.
	When a defendant takes the stand, he does so as a witness. That is the crucial point to keep in mind. There is no reason to read the word "witness" in clause 2(3)(c) as excluding the defendant. The meaning given to "witness" in the "Concise Oxford English Dictionary" is a
	"person giving sworn testimony in a law court or for legal purposes".
	The word may be used in statutory provisions as including defendants. For example, section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 governs intimidation of witnesses. The provision, of course, also covers the intimidation of defendants in respect of their evidence.
	I see no reason why clause 2(3)(c) is any different. There is no reason why it should be read as not requiring a notice to be given to a defendant. The notice must be given to persons both where they appear as a party to the proceedings and where they attend as a witness. That is because subsection (1) provides that subsections (2) and (3) apply to both parties and witnesses. Therefore, a notice will always be given to a party to the proceedings, as well as to a witness. However, we need refer to a witness in subsection (3) only because—I stress this point again—when a defendant takes the stand, he does so as a witness in the proceedings.
	Two types of privilege afforded to defendants were given as examples in Grand Committee by noble Lords wishing the amendment to be carried: the privilege against self-incrimination and spousal immunity. However, both these privileges are afforded to the party as a witness. It is true that a party could not be compelled to give evidence, whereas a witness could, subject to the right not to incriminate himself. But that is a privilege afforded to the party as a witness. Similarly, for example, under section 80(4) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a spouse who is also charged in proceedings is not compellable. Again, that is a privilege afforded to the party as a witness. We have identified no rights and privileges that would be accorded to a party in the proceedings, in addition to those that he would already be accorded as a witness.
	Clause 2 is different from the 1990 Act only in that it refers to a party to the proceedings, as opposed to a defendant, but that is to cover different Scottish nomenclature of persons appearing before a Scottish court and the fact that some of the proceedings in question are not purely criminal. There is no difference of substance between the 1990 Act and clause 2(3)(c) and, for the reasons that I have given, we are happy to accept the amendment as drafted.
	I assume that amendment No. 35 will not be moved as I have accepted amendment No. 1 and see no merit in the longer variation. We strongly prefer amendment No. 1 and see no reason for introducing the reference to proceedings, as amendment No. 35 does. We do not see that this provides any further clarification.
	We do not consider amendments Nos. 2 and 4 to be helpful or necessary. I have read the Hansard report of discussions on the matter with my predecessor. Subsection (3) of clause 3 refers to all process. Translations must be provided for any process where the person at whose request it is issued believes that the intended recipient does not understand English. All that subsection (4) does is to impose additional requirements where the process relates to a party or a witness. Subsection (4) creates additional obligations, but does not limit the overriding obligation for translation of all types of process to be provided in subsection (3). It would not be necessary to insert a reference to forwarding translations in subsection (4), as that is already provided for in subsection (3).
	Where a translation of the process is required, it is wholly reasonable to expect the court to forward it. That goes for translations relating to parties or witnesses, as well as other types of process, such as court judgments. The act of sending the process from the court is not set out in the Bill, which is limited to setting out the requirements for issuing process, the relevant requirement being that a translation is provided. The sending procedure is currently covered by rules of court, which state that where a summons is issued or order made for service outside the UK, it shall be sent by the justice's clerk to the Secretary of State. Updated rules will reflect the options to send it either to the Secretary of State or direct to the recipient, but will otherwise reflect the existing ones. We believe, therefore, that where it is required, translation will be forthcoming and that further amendment is not necessary.

David Heath: Clearly, there is provision for a translation to be made and for the notice to be transmitted to the person. I understand that. Is the Minister saying that the copy, translated into an appropriate language, will form part of the process? If so, she is right—my amendment becomes unnecessary. It would be helpful if she would confirm that.

Caroline Flint: I understand that to be the case. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

David Heath: It does.

Caroline Flint: Finally, let me deal with amendment No. 3. As I explained in my letter of 16 July to members of the Committee, we cannot accept the amendment. In the first instance, we do not consider that rules of court are an appropriate method for setting out what the Secretary of State will do. As hon. Members are aware from our discussions in Committee, under the new arrangements for the service of process required by Schengen and MLAC—the mutual legal assistance convention—it will become routine for the majority of procedural documents to be sent directly from the issuing authority in this country, without any involvement of the Secretary of State. When he is involved, however, existing and long-established practices will be followed. Service of process via the Secretary of State is not new: it existed under the 1990 Act and has worked effectively. That was discussed in Committee. The Bill is not designed fundamentally to change our mutual legal assistance system—it builds on existing arrangements, amending them where appropriate to accommodate the new requirements of, for example, Schengen. That is a clear example of an area of mutual legal assistance in which there is no merit in creating additional bureaucracy where the established system has worked very effectively.
	We do not agree that the approach that we have chosen risks successful challenges in subsequent domestic proceedings. Rules of court made under the 1990 Act already set out what constitutes proof of service of summons outside the United Kingdom. They provide that
	"the service on any person of a summons issued under section 2(1) of the Act may be proved in any legal proceedings by a certificate given by or on behalf of the Secretary of State."
	Those rules of court will be updated to reflect the new legislation.
	Authorities issuing process will request personal service, via the overseas central authority, if proof that the recipient has received the process is required. In the case of documents bound for recipients in EU and Schengen member states, the issuing authority may itself send the documents to the overseas central authority requesting personal service, bypassing the Secretary of State. Rules governing his activity would therefore not be helpful.
	Service of domestic court process on people residing in the UK is done not by the Secretary of State, but by the court. Service of summonses in the purely domestic context is very different from service on people residing overseas, most importantly because a summons served on someone present in the UK obliges them to attend court. By contrast, a summons served on someone overseas does not impose any obligations to attend, nor does failure to comply result in any sanctions being taken.
	For those reasons, we accept amendment No. 1 and ask that amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 be rejected.

David Heath: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for her response to this group of amendments. We are making real progress in three respects. First, the hon. Lady accepted my amendment No. 1 and implicitly rejected that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), which is a little long-winded. Secondly, she accepted the principle of what I was trying to achieve in amendments Nos. 2 and 4. I am most grateful to her for confirming that the translation forms part of the process at the point at which it is provided to the court. I was trying to ensure that it did not become a separate document that was not necessarily transmitted to the intended recipient, which would have made nonsense of the whole provision. Thirdly, in relation to amendment No. 3, the hon. Lady indicated that there would, as I had hoped, be a consequent amendment to the rules of court to deal with the provisions of the Bill, so my amendment becomes unnecessary.
	I consider this to be one of the finest victories that we have achieved in the course of these proceedings and this group of amendments to be one of the best that we will debate today. I am happy to allow amendment No. 1 to be put to the vote and certainly do not intend to press any of the others.
	Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Requests for assistance in obtaining evidence abroad

Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 5, line 43 [Clause 7], at end insert—
	'(8) Nothing in this section shall permit the disclosure of items subject to legal professional privilege.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 38, in page 13, line 33 [Clause 22], at end insert,
	"other than any item subject to legal professional privilege."
	No. 39, in page 15, line 7 [Clause 26], at end insert—
	'( ) A court in Scotland may not issue a warrant under section 18 or 22 in respect of any evidence unless the court has reasonable grounds for believing that it does not consist of or include items subject to legal privilege.'
	No. 40, in page 22, line 21 [Clause 37], at end insert—
	'(9) Nothing in this section shall permit the disclosure of items subject to legal professional privilege.'.
	No. 41, in page 23, line 38 [Clause 40], at end insert—
	'(8) Nothing in this section shall permit the disclosure of items subject to legal professional privilege.'.
	No. 42, in page 25, line 43 [Clause 43], at end insert—
	'(8) Nothing in this section shall permit the disclosure of any item subject to legal professional privilege.'.
	No. 43, in page 26, line 21, [Clause 44], at end insert—
	'(6) Nothing in this section shall permit the disclosure of any item subject to legal professional privilege.'.

Alistair Carmichael: Now that we appear to be on a roll, I look forward to a similarly positive ministerial response. Like the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), these amendments may or may not need to be in the Bill, but there is no harm in putting them there. I therefore commend the Minister for her logic on the previous group of amendments and encourage her to be consistent in her approach.
	I associate myself with my hon. Friend's earlier comments about the regrettable absence of Scotland Office Ministers. Some of the matters that we are considering have a significant impact on Scots law and it is unfortunate that no one from the Scotland Office is present.

Annabelle Ewing: Is it not also a matter for regret that no Labour Back-Bench Member who represents a Scottish constituency is present?

Alistair Carmichael: It is a matter for regret, but perhaps not of massive consequence. I am sure that the fact that Dover house is in a frenzy of activity, preparing for this evening's reception to honour the Scottish brewing industry, is unrelated to such absence. Having been party to proceedings in Committee and on the Floor of the House, I say in all candour that, given the choice between a brewery reception and today's proceedings, I understand the temptation of attending the former.
	The amendments in the group are perhaps not the most exciting that will be presented in the House. None the less, they are important because they relate to the lawyer-client relationship and the privilege that attaches to it. The importance of privilege in that context cannot be overestimated. It is fundamental to the working of the relationship that both parties are secure in the knowledge that the information that passes from one to the other cannot be disclosed to a third party, other than with the client's consent. If privilege is removed, all clients will have at the back of their minds the question, "Should I be telling my lawyer this?" Once that doubt appears, we are on a slippery slope. It is therefore important to place protection of lawyer-client privilege in the Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 37, 40, 41, 42 and 43 are almost identical. They would all add an extra subsection to the various clauses. They state:
	"Nothing in this section shall permit the disclosure of items subject to legal professional privilege."
	The clauses are 37, which deals with letters of request for assistance in obtaining evidence from abroad; 40, which relates to account information; 43, which deals with information about a person's bank account, and 44, which covers monitoring banking transactions. It is easy to understand that privileged information could be held in all those circumstances.
	The purpose of the amendments is simply to incorporate in the Bill the express protection that the lawyer-client relationship should receive. The genesis of the amendments is the Law Society of Scotland, which raised its concerns with me and other hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies. The Law Society of Scotland is not known for expressing vexatious concerns about important matters and I therefore hope that the Minister will take it on board that the amendments have that body's imprimatur.
	Amendment No. 38 would amend clause 22, which affects overseas freezing orders. It would place some limit on the extent of the evidence that may be seized and retained under clause 22(1)(b). Under the Bill, courts may issue a warrant that authorises a constable to
	"seize and retain any evidence".
	Again, a provision should be expressly included in the Bill that that which is subject to the lawyer-client privilege should not be capable of seizure under a warrant, or, indeed, that a warrant would not extend to such information.
	Amendment No. 39 to clause 26 proposes to insert Scotland into the list of countries to which the clause applies. This is to ensure that Scottish judges would not be able to issue warrants unless they believed that the material seized did not contain items that were subject to the legal professional privilege. Clause 26 currently provides that courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland may not issue warrants for evidence
	"unless the court or justice has reasonable grounds for believing that it does not consist of or include items subject to legal privilege, excluded material or special procedure material."
	In Scotland, courts do not have excluded material or special procedure material, but they recognise material subject to legal professional privilege. It therefore seems eminently sensible that Scotland should be brought within the ambit of the clause. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on the amendments.

Nick Hawkins: I support what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has just said. I also echo his tribute to the Law Society of Scotland, which has assisted him, me and other colleagues in our consideration of this Bill and other legislation. We are grateful for the work of its director, Michael Clancy, for whom we all share a great deal of respect.
	The hon. Gentleman was perhaps a little bold to say that he was on a roll after the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) had claimed all the credit for getting the Government to accept the previous amendments, and been rather churlish about his own amendments.

Alistair Carmichael: I am quite accustomed to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) claiming all the credit, and over the last two and a half years I have learned to ignore it.

Nick Hawkins: I am glad that there is such amity on the re-cast Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
	These are important matters, and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will recall that we had a brief discussion about legal privilege in Committee on 10 June, when the issue came up under clause 10(3)(d). On that occasion, we were talking about domestic freezing orders. In the light of the Minister's helpful acceptance of what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said about consistency during our consideration of the previous group of amendments, I hope that she will say that the amendments in this group would do no harm to the Bill and would also add helpful safeguards and consistency.
	I would particularly like to support what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has just said about overseas freezing orders. Given that the Government have already referred, in clause 10(3)(d), to items subject to legal privilege in the context of domestic freezing orders, we definitely ought to have the same safeguards for overseas freezing orders. If I may pick out just one of the hon. Gentleman's amendments, that amendment in particular should commend itself to the Government. I hope that, even if the Minister cannot accept the other amendments in the group, she will accept that one, because it is quite apparent that there should be consistency between domestic and overseas freezing orders. If a legal professional privilege safeguard is already included in clause 10 for domestic freezing orders, the same safeguard should be included for overseas freezing orders.
	We all share the views of the Law Society of Scotland—I am sure that the Law Society of England and Wales holds similar views—about the need for legal professional privilege to be written into the clauses for the protection of clients and the sanctity of the lawyer-client confidential relationship, and it would be of enormous help if the safeguards in all the hon. Gentleman's amendments were added to the Bill. I do not need to say more than that.

Annabelle Ewing: I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). The Law Society of Scotland assisted him, and I offer my thanks for the briefing it gave me.
	The amendments deal with the key principle of Scots law on legal privilege. That important principle has been recognised by the European convention on human rights, yet, curiously, no account has been taken of it in the Bill. As a Scottish National party MP, I should add that that is not too surprising, because unfortunately the interests and integrity of Scots law is overridden by Westminster time and again. In this period of consensuality, it is aided and abetted by the Labour-Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive in Edinburgh, who seem quite happy consistently to transfer the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to Westminster by way of Sewel motions.

Alistair Carmichael: Can the hon. Lady tell me how many Sewel motions the Scottish National party has opposed?

Annabelle Ewing: No, not off the top of my head, but I shall let the hon. Gentleman know. There have been some 60 Sewel motions, despite the fact that we were told by one of the architects of the Scotland Bill—the late Donald Dewar—that they would be used only in exceptional circumstances. However, I do not want to take up time on that subject: I mention it in passing for the record. I am happy to lend my party's support for the substance of the amendments. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to what has been said, and to accept the amendments.

Caroline Flint: I am afraid that I shall disappoint hon. Members. We do not believe that the amendments are necessary, so I cannot accept them. I hope that I can allay the concerns of hon. Members about the protection of legally privileged material.
	There is extensive case law on legal professional privilege, which is a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice rests. In a recent House of Lords judgment, legal professional privilege was upheld as an attribute of the right to legal confidentiality that arises as a matter of substantive law. Legal advice cannot be obtained unless a client is able to put all the facts before the adviser without fear that they may afterwards be disclosed and used to the client's prejudice. The judgment confirms that such a fundamental right cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous statutory words. An intention to override such rights must be expressly stated or appear by necessary implication. I suggest that nothing in the Bill explicitly or implicitly allows for the disclosure of items subject to legal professional privilege.
	References to legal professional privilege in clauses 7 and 22 are unnecessary for the reasons I have given. Nothing in those clauses would override that fundamental right.
	We consulted the Scottish Executive extensively on the drafting of the Bill, and on our response to the amendments to clause 26. We have good contacts at official level. I understand that the Law Society of Scotland has not approached the Scottish Executive about this matter, so we are confident that the Bill is correct.

Alistair Carmichael: There is no reason for the Law Society of Scotland to approach the Scottish Executive on matters that are before this House. If approaches are to be made, they should be made to the Home Office or to the Scotland Office. An approach may have been made to the Scotland Office, but we cannot know that because no Scotland Office Minister is present. There is a need to include Scotland in the Bill, because failure to do so will surely lead any judge seeking to construe this clause in Scotland to say that Parliament intended the provision to apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but that if it had intended it to apply to Scotland it would have said so.

Caroline Flint: I understand that the Scottish Law Society has not contacted anyone in my Department about these issues.

Annabelle Ewing: rose—

Caroline Flint: If I may continue, I shall get to the crux of the issue and explain why I do not think that the amendment should be accepted.
	I was talking about the amendment to clause 26. Search warrant procedure in Scotland differs from that in the rest of the United Kingdom, and the search warrant procedures in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 do not extend to Scotland. The common law principle of legal client confidentiality would apply to the execution of warrants granted under the Bill.
	In certain circumstances it may be appropriate to have a definition in Scotland that equates to that used in the rest of the UK. That applies to some aspects of mutual legal assistance when requests for assistance are being sent to a variety of jurisdictions, as well as pertaining to international criminal investigations that may originate in both Scotland and England. Clause 10, which implements the new provisions relating to outgoing freezing orders, is one such instance. Clause 10(3)(d), which applies in Scotland, contains the term
	"items subject to legal privilege".
	The appropriate definition relating to Scotland is provided in clause 28(4).
	Let me stress again that the amendment is not required for Scotland, particularly in relation to clause 18, as it would be tautological. The clause gives the sheriff the same powers in relation to granting a warrant as he has in domestic cases under section 134 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. He is therefore already required to take into account any question of legal client confidentiality. The amendment would also put Scotland in a different position from the rest of the UK, where search warrant provisions do not include any provisions additional to or different from the provisions in PACE. A sheriff faced with a provision as amended would be entitled to believe that there was a different standard to be applied by him in consideration of the application. That is not the intention of the Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 43 all relate to chapter 4, which concerns banking information. Customer information cannot relate to legally privileged material—that is, communications between a professional legal adviser and a client in connection with the giving of legal advice, or in contemplation or for the purposes of litigation. Customer information orders can be made only against financial institutions that are defined by reference to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and only in relation to customer information. We do not see how the subject matter of the orders could constitute legally privileged material. All four clauses covered by the amendments relate to orders made against banks and other financial institutions to obtain specified information. Any reference to legal professional privilege would be irrelevant in such circumstances.
	For those reasons, I am afraid that we cannot accept any of the amendments.

Alistair Carmichael: When I was a solicitor practising in the courts I often found myself engaging in arguments or debates about questions of legal or statutory construction. One would ask oneself, "How on earth did Parliament not see that coming? Why on earth did it leave such an ambiguity?" Following my election I know that Parliament usually did see it coming, but that officials told the Minister that action was not necessary, and that was the end of the matter.
	May I clarify the issue of the Law Society for Scotland? I am not sure what point the Minister was trying to make when she said that there had been no contact between the society and the Scottish Executive. We do not know about the Scotland Office, and the Minister tells us that she has heard nothing from her Department. I have here a briefing letter from Michael Clancy. I do not know whether the Minister is trying to suggest that the society does not support the amendments, but that is clearly not the case.

Caroline Flint: I was not suggesting for a minute that the Law Society for Scotland had not lobbied the hon. Gentleman. I merely said that I understood that no such lobbying had taken place with the Scottish Executive or with officials from my Department dealing with the Bill.

Alistair Carmichael: The fact remains that that is the society's view, and I hoped that it would be given rather more consideration than the Minister appears to have given it today.
	The Minister was doing so well, but she seems to have lost the track. She has made me not angry, but a little sad and disappointed in her. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Clause 27
	 — 
	Exercise of Powers by Others

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 15, line 35, leave out 'Treasury' and insert 'Secretary of State'.
	This is a small but important matter. One reason why we tabled this amendment for consideration was to give the Government the opportunity to come back to the House. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who dealt with this issue previously as a Minister—he has been elevated to deputy Chief Whip—accepted that the existing brief did not clarify matters as well as he would have liked. In fact, he said:
	"I am not certain to what degree I am prepared to resist."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 June 2003; c. 121.]
	I previously urged the current Minister not to read out a line about resisting, and she heeded my advice and immediately accepted the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), so I hope that she will follow the example of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, but perhaps her resistance will prove stronger than his did. As a Minister, he undertook to seek further advice from the Treasury about whether it wanted the Government to continue to resist the amendment, and my first request to the current Minister is to give us the benefit of that further advice.
	There is a serious point that I want to reiterate. We did not debate this issue in Committee through an amendment, so this is the first time we have been able to consider amending the Bill in this way. You have much more experience of such matters than me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is surely very rare, if not completely unheard of, for a Bill to include powers for "the Treasury" to grant an order. It is customary for legislation to give powers to "the Secretary of State", because such terminology covers any senior Minister and Cabinet member who is responsible for a Department. Indeed, that procedure is commonplace. We never specify the Secretary of State for a particular Department, so as to allow for future changes; however, this Bill gives power to "the Treasury".
	I argue against doing that, and in two valid ways. First, if by "the Treasury" the Government mean the Chancellor of the Exchequer—or any other Treasury Minister—I see no reason why he should not be classified as a Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister can say whether there is some legal reason why the Chancellor, despite being in charge of a Government Department, is not considered a Secretary of State. My understanding is that he is so considered—he is certainly paid the same as the other Secretaries of State—so I see no reason why the generic term cannot be used.
	We face another oddity. The Treasury itself is an institution, not a person. In legislation, we carefully give powers to Ministers and to Secretaries of State. They are people—members of the Government acting on the Government's behalf to introduce orders for our consideration. It seems odd to seek to give power to an institution, to a building. If the legislation has to be related to the Treasury—I will take a lot of convincing that that is so—why does it not specify the Chancellor of the Exchequer or, as I said in Committee, the Prime Minister, who is First Lord of the Treasury? I cannot understand why the Bill should refer to a building.

Julian Lewis: Since entering this House in 1997, I have never seen a Bill that referred to a ministry rather than to a Secretary of State. The only explanation that I can think of for the failure to refer to a Secretary of State, or to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by his office, is the current state of relations between No. 10 Downing street and the Exchequer.

James Paice: I cannot deny that the thought crossed my mind, but I am perhaps too nice a person to make such an allegation. [Interruption.] I hear the Government Whip say, "Surely not", and he is probably right. I shall make amends later.
	I am making an important point. On the one hand, we are giving powers to an institution rather than specifying an individual Minister or using a generic term for a member of the Government. On the other hand, we seem to be restricting the powers to a specific Department. When we debated the issue in a stand part debate in Committee, it was argued that the Treasury might wish to make legislation about Customs and Excise. I understand that, but that is to presume that, for ever and a day, Customs will be part of the Treasury. That may or may not be the case, but the same argument could be advanced for any other Government institution.
	The issue of whether an area of policy will always be associated with a specific Department is important and is precisely why we do not specify Secretaries of State for individual Departments. We always use the generic term "the Secretary of State", so I cannot understand why, in respect of making an order for the consideration of the House, the Government persist with using the term "the Treasury". The Minister was reasonable earlier when she accepted an amendment, and I hope that she will not resist this one.

David Heath: The amendments need not detain us long, but the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has put his finger on what appears to be an anomaly within the Bill. I share his view that given that countless examples of legislation refer to "the Secretary of State" in the generic sense, it is curious that these provisions differ. We have both dealt on many occasions with legislation that encompasses the duties of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise within that generic term. We have considered statutory instruments covering both the police and Customs and Excise that happily specify the Secretary of State.
	The only Minister continually singled out and identified in legislation by title—chaos will be caused in abolishing the position—is the Lord Chancellor. He is not a generic Minister because of the present confused position regarding who is the head of the judiciary. I have no idea why the Treasury has been identified in the provisions. I hope that it does not encompass the Treasury in the sense of something other than the Ministers as such—not only the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Lords Commissioners, the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household and the crew who sit at the far end of the Treasury Bench. If they are to determine the future of the legislation, we have very serious cause for concern.
	The Minister certainly owes us an explanation—her ministerial colleague was unable to provide it in Committee—that is rather more convincing than the simple argument that because there might be a reference to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, the Treasury has to be specified by name. I express the hope that the enforcement functions of Customs and Excise will eventually not be the responsibility of the Treasury. I have held that view for some time and I would like to see that area of responsibility under an entirely different Department. That is an aside, but the hon. Lady must explain why the Bill is formulated as it is.

Caroline Flint: My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), said in Committee:
	"I shall seek further advice from the Treasury about whether it would want us to continue to resist the amendment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 June 2003; c. 121.]
	I am afraid, however, that resist I must. We reflected further on the issue, which is connected with Customs and Excise. The power to make orders conferring powers on Customs is properly exercisable by the Treasury—the Department to which Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is answerable. We consulted Customs on that matter.
	Clause 27(1) creates a power to grant certain powers specifically to Customs and Excise. It is correct that the Treasury makes the order. Similar references in other legislation—for example, section 114 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—give the Treasury the power to make provisions by order. There are other, more recent precedents for referring to the Treasury when conferring powers on customs officers, including section 7(7) of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, as well as more recent legislation on income tax and finance. Precedents exist, and there is little more to say. That is the protocol used.

John Gummer: Why cannot the Minister accept the amendment? I understand why she says that the provision is reasonable as it stands, but now that the matter has been raised it would not matter if the words were changed to read "Secretary of State". As long as the Treasury continues to have control over Customs and Excise, the Treasury can use the powers. The refusal to accept the amendment leads many of us to suspect that there is something behind it. Why will the Government not give way on this issue when it does not seem to matter very much? Is there something behind it?

Caroline Flint: No, there is nothing behind it. The issue is straightforward. The phrase "the Treasury" has been used in numerous other pieces of legislation. There is nothing to be gained by muddying the waters and changing the legislation today, and for that reason we will not accept the amendment.

James Paice: The Minister is being unduly difficult. This is not a major issue, but it is important. I am grateful to her for producing some precedents, but that does not mean that we have to follow them. We have identified what we believe to be a misuse of language and an oddity in the reference to an institution as opposed to an officeholder. The Minister has not answered my question about whether the Chancellor is a Secretary of State.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) suggested that there might be something behind the Government's use of language, and it could be concern on the Chancellor's part that some other Secretary of State might introduce an order affecting Customs and Excise without the Treasury knowing about it. However, the prospect of the present Chancellor not knowing what is going on in another Department is difficult to accept. He seems to know—if not dictate—what happens in every other Department.
	I fear that the Minister has failed to persuade us on this issue. She has not told us why it would be wrong to use the usual term, so I wish to divide the House on the matter.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 300.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 28
	 — 
	Interpretation of Chapter 2

Caroline Flint: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 16, line 19, leave out from 'means' to end of line 22 and insert
	'the Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence adopted by the Council of the European Union on 22nd July 2003'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 15 to 17 and 19 to 27.

Caroline Flint: I should like to say a few words about these Government amendments, bearing in mind the fact that we were criticised—I think, unjustly—during earlier debates for not having brought new clause 1 to the House's attention earlier, during proceedings in Committee. So I want to put on record the reason why these technical amendments are being moved today.
	These technical amendments have been tabled to take account of the recent adoption, on 22 July, by the European Council of the framework decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence. Now that the framework decision has been formally adopted, it makes for good drafting in the Bill to refer to the final form of the decision. The Bill currently refers to the relevant framework decision, and secondary legislation would be required to identify the framework decision and the provisions of the decision defining what are listed offences covered by freezing orders and what is the specified information to be contained in a certificate accompanying the orders.
	Under the amendments, the Bill will refer to the framework decision as formally adopted, giving the provisions greater clarity. The relevant definitions in clause 28 and schedule 4 will be amended to refer to the framework decision itself and to the specific provisions in the framework decision that have been formally adopted.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendments made: No. 15, in page 16, line 31 [Clause 28], leave out from 'in' to 'of' in line 32 and insert 'Article 3(2)'.
	No. 16, in page 16, line 33 [Clause 28], leave out 'such an order' and insert
	'an order made by the Secretary of State'.
	No. 17, in page 16, line 40 [Clause 28], leave out from 'by' to 'or' in line 42 and insert
	'the form of certificate annexed to the relevant Framework Decision'.—[Caroline Flint.]

Clause 33
	 — 
	Making, Varying or Discharging Customer Information Orders

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 20, line 3 [Clause 33], leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 7, in page 25, line 7 [Clause 43], leave out 'bank' and insert 'financial institution'.
	No. 8, in page 25, line 26 [Clause 43], leave out 'banks' and insert 'financial institutions'.
	No. 9, in page 25, line 32 [Clause 43], leave out 'bank' and insert 'financial institution'.
	No. 10, in page 25, line 33 [Clause 43], leave out 'bank or banks' and insert 'financial institution or institutions'.
	No. 11, in page 26, line 20 [Clause 44], leave out 'banks' and insert 'financial institutions'.
	No. 12, in page 27, line 9 [Clause 46], leave out paragraph (b).

David Heath: Amendment No. 6 will be familiar to members of the Standing Committee, and particularly to Conservative Front-Bench Members, who were happy to move a similar amendment in Committee. I hope that they still feel able to support the sentiment involved.
	We have a serious problem with the scope of clause 33(3)(a), which allows that the application for information on monetary transactions may specify as a single entity all financial institutions. Without wishing to spend a lot of time explaining our objections to that, it seems to us that framing the provision in that way, so that every financial institution in the country must provide the relevant transaction information, or at the very least, look for it, implies a substantial burden on those institutions, to no great effect, first because the vast majority of them will be irrelevant to the investigation in question, and secondly because if all the institutions provide information, it will be extremely difficult for the investigating authorities to process it. I referred in Committee to the difficulties that the National Criminal Intelligence Service has in current circumstances in dealing with the amount of financial information involved, and such an increase would overwhelm its investigation systems. Moreover, if the evidence on the basis of which a request is made is so flimsy that it is impossible to identify even a class of financial institutions that should properly provide the necessary information, that suggests to me that that evidence is insufficient to be acceptable as a trigger for the procedure in the first instance.
	In addition, as I said in Committee, I think that the drafting of clause 33(3)(b) and (c) covers all eventualities. I asked the Minister in Committee what would be the effect on any proposed investigation that she could envisage if paragraph (a) were missing. She did not give a convincing answer with regard to anything that would fall outside the provisions of paragraphs (b),
	"a particular description, or particular descriptions, of financial institutions"
	or (c),
	"a particular financial institution or particular financial institutions".
	Paragraph (b) allows for a class of financial institutions which, under the extreme circumstances adduced by the Minister—for instance, an anti-terrorism investigation—could be extended to include all financial institutions, so paragraph (a) is otiose. I hope that the hon. Lady will consider further whether including paragraph (a) will not put an unnecessary burden on our financial institutions, which the British Bankers Association identifies as the part of the Bill with which it cannot agree. The Government should think again.
	Amendments Nos. 7 to 11 relate to circumstances in which account information could be sought by British authorities from overseas authorities. In Committee, I drew attention to the fact that, in considering this country, we refer to financial institutions, whereas in considering other countries, we refer to banks. I asked whether there was a reason for that, and whether it would be better to delete the word "bank" from the Bill and replace it with "financial institution", which the amendments would do. The Home Office and the Minister have considered that and I am grateful that the hon. Lady wrote to me to explain the thinking behind the Department's view.
	I hope that I summarise fairly what the Minister wrote. She said that, in relation to a request from an institution in this country, since we have a loose definition of banks but a safe definition, in legal terms, of financial institutions, that is the proper term to use, which I accept entirely. However, she said that, in considering overseas authorities, definitions are necessarily enshrined in those countries' domestic legislation, and nothing to do with what we might care to say in our legislation. Those arguments are absolutely right, but I am worried that the use of the word "bank" in the Bill will limit the scope of what could properly be requested from an overseas authority to information from either what a British court would define as a bank, which is a narrow and incomplete definition compared with that of a financial institution, or what an overseas body defines as a bank, which might be a limited subset of all the financial institutions in a country. For example, there are many mutual credit organisations in France that are not banks, by definition, but are nevertheless financial institutions in which people deposit money and to which I hope the provisions would apply.
	The substitution of the word "bank" for "financial institution" when dealing with our requests to overseas authorities limits ab initio what we may ask for, which is an inherently weaker position. I ask the Minister to consider again whether the arguments in her letter hold water.
	Amendment No. 12 relates to provisions for introducing new offences, effectively by negative resolution, through a decision by the Council of Ministers, which would be translated into British law with minimal scrutiny in this country. That is objectionable. The argument made in Committee was that we should not wish to overload this Parliament with scrutiny. When considering overseas requests to scrutinise the bank accounts of citizens of this country, we owe it to them to apply a little more scrutiny than that implied by the provision. The offences might be determined by qualified majority voting in the future, so the Council of Ministers could vote to overrule a British Minister and add offences to the list. The British Government would be required to add offences to the list with which they did not agree because they had been outvoted under QMV and there would be only minimal scrutiny by the House. Many hon. Members, myself included, do not think that that is acceptable. At the very least, a proper process of scrutiny in the House is required so that we constituency Members of Parliament may speak up for constituents who might be affected by such a decision. I make no apologies for taking an apocalyptic view. I do not think that the circumstances that I have described would arise in a reasonable scenario, but they could. It is right that when we legislate for the UK we consider the worst case rather than the best case. That is why the amendment is necessary.
	This group of amendments is important, and it needs careful scrutiny because the process, although necessary, is intrusive. We have no argument with the basic principles of what the Government are trying to achieve, but the House should have careful control of the process. The wording is important because it may reduce the measures' effectiveness by applying too heavy a burden on those on whom they bear, by incorrectly defining the circumstances in which the powers can be used or by allowing an expansion of the powers without the proper imprimatur of the House, which is an important part of our legislative process.

James Paice: I endorse and support what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said. I reminded myself that we debated the earlier version of amendment No. 6, which my hon. Friends and I tabled, 35 minutes after the Minister started her first day in Committee, having just taken up her responsibilities. She acquitted herself well, but she has had four months to reflect on her answer. I hope she realises that our case on the wide terminology of "financial institutions" has some validity.
	I do not want to repeat the arguments made in Committee or by the hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the Minister's justification that all financial institutions may need to be considered in a major terrorism investigation. Nothing in the amendment would remove that possibility. The hon. Gentleman said that clause 33(3)(b) and (c) will allow such an investigation to be carried out. In addition, subsection (2) allows a further application to be made ex parte to a judge in chambers if it is later found that an institution or group of institutions was not covered in a previous application. There is a belt-and-braces approach even if it is necessary for a major investigation to cover every possible definition of the term "financial institutions".
	I wholly endorse the argument that to allow the application to specify all financial institutions at the outset is a scatter-gun approach. It demonstrates a lack of clarity in relation to the person or people being investigated or the information being sought. There could also be a huge waste of resources if all financial institutions are approached. The Minister rightly said in Committee that people will not willingly waste resources—she perhaps has, a slightly higher opinion than me of some of the organisations that serve us—but we should ensure that that does not happen. The amendment is wise, and I hope that the Minister follows her earlier example and accepts it.
	Amendment No. 12 relates to the issue of giving the Secretary of State—an interesting phraseology in the light of the earlier debate—the power
	"to give effect to any decision of the Council of the European Union under paragraph 6".
	Far be it from me to challenge the hon. Gentleman's European credentials. I read that the Liberal party is rowing back slightly from its enthusiasm for Europe, and perhaps the amendment is an example of that. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would like me to put on the record what he just said sotto voce, but I shall refrain from doing so.
	The important point is the one that the hon. Gentleman made. It would not be right for the European Union by majority voting to support a proposal, with a British Government perhaps voting against it, and for Ministers to immediately translate something into a serious criminal offence to which all the Bill's provisions applied. There is a need for greater parliamentary scrutiny, and I wholly endorse the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
	This is an important group of amendments. Many of them were covered to some extent in Committee, but they are worth reconsidering. In view of the time that the Minister has had to do so, I hope that she will give them a serious response and a fair wind, as she did in the case of those she accepted earlier.

Caroline Flint: As hon. Gentlemen said, there was discussion in Committee of the issues raised by the amendments. The substance of amendment No. 6 was discussed at some length. I reiterate that we consider it essential to retain the provision to allow a customer information order to specify all financial institutions. Although I am happy to go on the record stating that the circumstances in which the provision might be used would be exceptional, there may be circumstances in which we would want to be able to make such an order.
	For example, as we heard, in a terrorism case in which there is no specific evidence pointing to an account at a particular institution, but in which the seriousness of the offence and the need to trace any accounts are such that we consider a search of all financial institutions to be justified, it may be considered appropriate to obtain an order under the provision.
	On the comments about paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (3), we need paragraph (a), which refers to all financial institutions, because paragraphs (b) and (c) refer to particular institutions. In its natural everyday meaning, "particular" is different from "all", so how can "particular financial institutions" be read as covering "all financial institutions"? That is why we need to include paragraph (a).
	The ability to target an order at all financial institutions does not open the door to fishing expeditions, as I argued in Committee. There are safeguards, which were not mentioned by either of the hon. Gentlemen who spoke, unless I did not hear correctly. The Bill gives both the Secretary of State and the court discretion as to whether to make an order. The Secretary of State will consider whether a request meets the conditions of the protocol. If he is not satisfied and the request appears to be a fishing expedition, he may refuse it.
	The order has to be made by a judge, who must act in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998, thereby taking into account matters such as proportionality. The investigator and the judge must consider whether the number of financial institutions potentially covered by a customer information order balances against the tests set. The CIO application must also be approved by a senior officer, even before the investigator can apply to the judge. That creates yet another safeguard. Those are the steps that must be taken before an order allowing coverage of all financial institutions may be met, and that will occur in pretty rare circumstances.
	As was noted previously, the clause is consistent with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. I understand that Opposition Members were against the provisions of that Act and made their views clear while the Bill was proceeding through the House, but we stand by our position as outlined in that Act, which contains the power to make an order specifying all financial institutions. If we can do that for overseas money-laundering investigations, it is logical by extension to make similar provision in the Bill so that we can do so in the case of other serious crimes. Although, as I acknowledged in Committee, I recognise the potential burden of complying with such a request, I am afraid that I must resist the amendment.
	I turn to amendments Nos. 7 to 11. In Committee, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked why the Bill referred to "financial institutions" in respect of incoming requests and "banks" in respect of outgoing requests. I have written to him with an explanation, which I will repeat for the benefit of the House. The protocol obliges us to assist participating countries in identifying whether a suspect holds bank accounts. It also allows us to receive assistance from other participating countries in relation to banks and bank accounts. Because the protocol does not define "bank", and because each participating country will define the term differently under its domestic law, as was confirmed by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), we considered that the provisions on incoming requests must be drafted sufficiently broadly to enable us to assist with all properly made requests from participating countries. There is no single definition of "bank" in UK law. Even if there were, there is no guarantee that it would correspond with what another participating country considers to be a bank under its own domestic law. That is why we have adopted the term "financial institution", which is familiar in UK law and follows the provisions in section 416(4) and (6) and schedule 9 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. There would be scope to limit a search in a particular case in view of the overriding discretion on the part of the Secretary of State to consider requests from other countries under chapter 4.
	In terms of outgoing requests, we are entitled to seek assistance under the terms of the protocol in relation to bank accounts that are held in establishments located outside UK jurisdiction, where the UK legal concept of "financial institution" will not necessarily have any meaning. If we were to use the expression "financial institution" in respect of outgoing requests, a UK judicial authority that requested assistance under clause 43 would have to be satisfied that an account was held at an overseas establishment conforming to the UK concept of "financial institution" and carrying on
	"business in the regulated sector".
	It would not be correct for the Bill to require overseas banks to come within the domestic UK framework. What constitutes an overseas bank for the purposes of the protocol is interpreted in each of the member states' own legal systems. It would not be possible—or, for that matter, sensible—for us to legislate for each country's own domestic law. When making requests to the UK under the protocol, overseas authorities must interpret the term "bank" consistently with the protocol within their own legal framework. For those reasons, we are satisfied that the use of the term "bank" in clause 43 is appropriate.
	Finally, let me deal with amendment No. 12. I am afraid that we cannot accept the deletion that it proposes. That would remove our ability to comply with article 1 of the protocol in the event that its scope was expanded at a future date. When the protocol was negotiated, a number of member states argued that the identification of bank accounts should be possible in relation to all crimes. As many member states do not have central registers of bank accounts, and because the measure was so new and was seen by some states, including the UK, as being potentially intrusive, it was agreed that the scope would be limited to serious crimes. However, member states agreed that it should be possible to extend the scope to allow for advances in technology and for the possibility that experience of the operation of the protocol might prove the value of the measure. Having agreed the terms and signed the protocol, we need to be in a position to comply with it, including the potential to apply article 1 to other crimes. We therefore require a mechanism to extend our legislation accordingly.
	Any decision by the European Council to extend the scope of article 1 would be subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny arrangements. The subsequent statutory instrument implementing the revised obligations would be subject to the negative resolution procedure, which we believe to be proportionate. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not comment on that power. Where it highlighted concerns about the level of scrutiny in relation to designation of non-EU countries as participating countries, we amended the Bill accordingly. We have listened and given further consideration to the concerns that have been expressed, but, for the reasons that I outlined, we cannot accept the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: Earlier, the Minister gave the impression that Conservative Members opposed the whole of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. I know that she did not intend to do so, as I was the shadow Minister who dealt with that Bill. Will she confirm for the record that we supported many of its important measures, although we had some concerns, which we expressed at the time?

Caroline Flint: I am happy to confirm that sections of the Act were supported by Members from both Opposition parties represented here today. Given that we must have the scope to investigate suspects' accounts, particularly in the most grave situations involving terrible crimes, we felt that all financial institutions should be covered by that Act, and likewise, therefore, by this Bill.

David Heath: I am disappointed that the Minister has not acceded to my request. In respect of amendment No. 6, I do not wear her argument. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) pointed out in Committee, one of the problems with having such blanket cover is that there is no way of challenging the procedure, which involves an ex parte application by judges in chamber with no possibility of the institutions that will bear the burden playing any part in the decision. We are therefore right to be extremely cautious about the way in which such an application is made. I recognise, however, that I will not persuade the hon. Lady at this stage.
	On the definition of banks and financial institutions, I would accept the Minister's argument if the word "bank" had a connotation that went wider than the term "financial institution", because it would be logical to use the widest term, which can then be interpreted by the local jurisdiction consonant with its domestic legislation. However, she is saying the reverse—that we must limit the term to that which has a narrower definition even before the application is made. If we are able to understand what the term "financial institution" means within our domestic law for incoming requests, I have every confidence that overseas jurisdictions would be able to do so in terms of their own legislation for outgoing requests. That creates an anomaly whereby we effectively place a self-denying ordinance on the requests that we can make by using a term that is not consistent with the wider definition of "financial institution" that applies overseas. I accept, however, that having had this dialogue we are not going to agree.
	On amendment No. 12, the Minister is being a little disingenuous in saying that were it to be accepted it would be impossible for the Government to make appropriate provision to bring into effect any decision of the Council. Of course it would be possible—I am simply saying that we should not do it via the Secretary of State. It occurred to me after the previous debate that perhaps we should go through legislation crossing out "Secretary of State" and inserting "Treasury": in reality the Treasury makes the decisions, so why not say so in statute? Setting that aside, the mechanism is not entirely appropriate for what the Minister wants to do.
	Clearly, we can make no further progress at this stage. I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division, because that would be pointless. We have made our comments and they stand on the record. If the Bill does not work as the Government hope, we will be able to tell the Minister that we told her so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 47
	 — 
	Transfer of UK Prisoner to Assist Investigation Abroad

Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 28, line 9,leave out,
	'cannot be withdrawn after the issue of the warrant'
	and insert
	'can only be withdrawn on cause shown and with the consent of the court.'
	As with previous amendments, the genesis of the amendment is the Law Society of Scotland. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) would be in her place. Earlier, she chided Labour Back Benchers who represent Scottish constituencies for their absence. The hon. Lady, who always tells us that she is prepared to stand up for Scotland, has presumably gone to have her tea for Scotland.

David Heath: At the Scotland Office.

Alistair Carmichael: Indeed, she may be having her tea at the Scotland Office tonight.
	The amendment is simple. Clause 47 provides that once a prisoner has given his or her consent in writing to be transferred to another country to help with a criminal investigation, it cannot be withdrawn. The amendment would provide for opportunities to withdraw that consent
	"on cause shown and with the consent of the court."
	It appears draconian that, once written consent has been given and a warrant has been issued, there is no point of return. Surely the Minister accepts that a change of circumstances in the foreign jurisdiction might mean that it is appropriate for consent to be withdrawn. It may also become apparent that consent was given on the basis of false, misunderstood or misleading information.
	The reason for withdrawing consent would have to be of the nature that I outlined because the test of "cause shown" is exacting and consent could not be withdrawn willy-nilly. It would require a substantial reason, and the opportunity would be available in few circumstances because it is not simply a question of fulfilling the test of "cause shown"; there will be only a short time between issuing the warrant and departure to the foreign jurisdiction. The amendment does not therefore open the gate especially wide, but it includes an important safeguard. I commend it to the Minister.

James Paice: I support the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). We supported the thrust of the amendment in Committee when we discussed the need for a safeguard. In my experience, it is rare for legislation to contain such a bold and bald provision, without ifs, buts or caveats, that consent cannot be withdrawn after the issue of the warrant. That appears slightly dogmatic, especially when circumstances could change, both in the country to which the person is about to be extradited and for the individual.
	Under clause 47(4)(a), "the prisoner" may give the necessary written consent to being transferred, but subsequently suffer an extreme illness such as a mental breakdown. We may therefore find not only that the individual's circumstances have changed but that subsection (4)(b), which provides for someone else to act on the prisoner's behalf applies. In the extreme circumstances of someone suffering a mental breakdown, other illness or serious accident—one assumes that the latter will not happen to those in custody, but it is possible—it is unreasonable that there is no mechanism for review.
	As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, the amendment would not open the door to abuse of the system or drive a coach and horses through the option to transfer prisoners abroad. I would not support it if that were its effect. However, there is a need for a safeguard in the event of circumstances changing so dramatically that it could be shown that, at the time of transfer, the consent might be unreasonable and that the individual might not have given it in the altered circumstances. The person who gave consent on the prisoner's behalf under subsection (4)(b) might have taken a different stance in the different circumstances. I hope that the Minister appreciates the need for some, albeit small, safeguards. As a non-lawyer, the proposal of the Law Society of Scotland appears to me suitable in providing an opportunity for review in extremis. I hope that the Minister will support it.

Caroline Flint: We debated this issue on several occasions in Committee. We have considered the matter further, but we remain firmly of the opinion that amendment to the clause is not necessary. I hope that I can explain practically our intentions and our reasons for wanting to transfer a prisoner to another European country to help with a UK investigation.
	Clause 47 deals with circumstances in which a transfer is arranged from the UK, at its request, when UK investigations require a UK prisoner's presence, generally in the capacity of witness, in another country to assist with investigations into an offence committed here. For example, a prisoner might have been involved with or known about other people who had offended in the UK by, for example, being party to human trafficking or drug smuggling. Perhaps that prisoner could identify people known to him or her by attending an identity parade in, for example, France. Prisoners might also be able to identify a property that they had visited and at which those who had offended in the UK were present. Such events do not happen every day but,, given that crime knows no national boundaries and that we are trying to deal with that through co-operation, we need to be prepared for them. I have tried to give a practical example to show reasons for wanting to transfer a prisoner abroad to assist with a UK investigation. I hope that it gives hon. Members, people in the Gallery or those listening outside the Chamber an idea of what we are talking about.
	We envisage that such circumstances will be rare and the provision does not deal with giving evidence abroad in relation to overseas investigations. Section 5 of the 1990 Act will continue to cover that.

Alistair Carmichael: Would it be competent to raise a bill of suspension in respect of a warrant issued under clause 47?

Caroline Flint: I shall refer to that point shortly.
	Let me consider the amendment, which deals with the warrant and whether, once a warrant has been authorised, someone can go back on an agreement to be transferred. I stress that the warrant authorises but does not require the prisoner's transfer. It enables the transfer to happen, making it legal. It also enables the prisoner to be held in legal custody for the duration of the transfer.
	There is a process whereby the authorities engage a prisoner in the whys and wherefores of seeking that person's co-operation. It can take several months for the warrant to be authorised. At any point until the warrant is authorised, the relevant individual can refuse to take part. Police officers in such cases deal with prisoners in the same way as they deal with witnesses or suspects in a purely domestic investigation. They would interview a prisoner whose transfer was desirable in the same way as they would interview members of the public with a view to their providing evidence in a UK proceeding. Prisoners who are purely witnesses would be treated like any other witness; they would be interviewed by an officer and asked to sign a written statement. Suspects would be cautioned like any other suspect. The fact that they are prisoners does not result in different treatment.
	The clause requires prisoners, or someone acting on their behalf, to provide written consent to any transfer before it takes place. They will sign a consent form, witnessed by a prison official. Although they are not automatically entitled to legal advice—we discussed that in Committee—prisoners are entitled to seek it before agreeing to a transfer. Indeed, the standard consent form contains a statement which confirms that prisoners have been given the opportunity to seek legal advice. I can provide hon. Members with a copy of the form if that is helpful.
	Once consent has been granted, the practical arrangements for the transfer will be put in place by the authorities concerned. When these arrangements are all in place, the Secretary of State will issue a warrant authorising the transfer of the prisoner a few days before the transfer is scheduled to happen. Once that warrant has been issued, the prisoner will be unable to withdraw his consent. There is a process to be gone through in which a person is entitled to change their mind, but the warrant authorises the activity. It provides the framework in writing for proceeding with the transfer. As I have said, the prisoner may change his mind before the warrant is issued.

James Paice: I appreciate that the process will take only a few days, as the Minister has reminded us. Will she not accept, however, that a prisoner's health could change dramatically, even in a few days? They could have a mental breakdown, or suffer a serious stroke or heart attack. Something could happen quite suddenly that would dramatically change their circumstances, which could jeopardise their ability to make decisions for themselves. Their conditions would therefore not be the same when the warrant was executed as when they gave their consent.

Caroline Flint: We discussed this matter in Committee. If someone has had a heart attack, broken a leg or had a mental breakdown, the people facilitating the transfer would hardly be in a position to take that person in those circumstances. I mentioned the example of a national emergency in the country of destination. We would not necessarily want to transfer a prisoner into such a situation; indeed, we might not want to send the people taking the prisoner into such a situation either. In Committee, I said that in the event of
	"a national emergency in the country of destination or a person being unwell and unfit to travel . . . there is an opportunity for the Secretary of State to act. We want to ensure that at the end of the process there is a safeguard, so that we do not undermine all the work that has been done preceding the warrant's authorisation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 June 2003; c. 203.]
	There is nothing to be gained by the people investigating a UK offence if the person in question is unable to take part because of ill health or for other reasons. There would be no point in the investigating officers pursuing a case to that end. In refusing to accept the amendment, we are trying to safeguard against a cat-and-mouse game ensuing, at the end of a process which contains built-in safeguards, and work that has been legitimately pursued—including the signing of a form—not being adhered to.

James Paice: I would like to pursue this matter a little further. I understand the Minister's point that it would not be in the interest of the investigating authority to take someone who would be unable to participate in their investigation. I would point out, however, that clause 47(5) defines the circumstances in which
	"it appears to the Secretary of State to be inappropriate for the prisoner to act for himself, by reason of his physical or mental condition or his youth."
	The fact that the Government have put this in the Bill, and that under clause 47(4)(b), someone else could give consent on behalf of the person in question, implies that the Government are envisaging situations in which a prisoner could be transferred abroad despite a physical or mental condition that might reduce his ability to participate in the investigation. We seem to have that eventuality covered if it arises before consent is given, but if the prisoner's condition should change after consent was given, the situation could not be re-addressed. A change to that provision is all the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and I are asking for.

Caroline Flint: My understanding of clause 47(5) is that it acknowledges that the Secretary of State may find it inappropriate that a person should be transferred, by reason of his physical or mental condition or his youth. That provision is in the Bill as a safeguard in terms of the proceedings.

James Paice: I am sorry to have to say this to the Minister, but that is not what subsection 5 says. It defines the circumstances in which the Secretary of State believes that, if the individual cannot make the decision for himself, he can allow another person to give consent on his behalf. It is not to do with a decision that the person would be no use to the investigation, as the Minister suggests.

Caroline Flint: I think that the provision states that a prisoner may ask someone to act on their behalf in such circumstances. The clause as drafted requires the prisoner—or, as the hon. Gentleman says, someone acting on his behalf—to provide written consent to any transfer before it takes place. I can provide copies of the forms that are currently available for this purpose, which should allay some of the fears that hon. Members raised in Committee about whether people would be informed about what was happening, and whether they would have the opportunity to resist certain procedures if they did not want to take part. They have that right, up to the point at which the warrant is authorised. There are enough safeguards to ensure that the system operates in a full manner which will give the individual rights and which recognises that there might be circumstances such as ill health or events in the country of destination that would make the transfer inappropriate.
	As I have said, when the arrangements are all in place, the Secretary of State will issue a warrant authorising the transfer, a few days before it is scheduled to happen. Once the warrant has been issued, the prisoner will be unable to withdraw his consent, but he may change his mind before the warrant is issued.
	Prisoners in these circumstances are being transferred in order to be of assistance to a domestic investigation, so there would be no merit in transferring a prisoner who was unwilling to co-operate, for whatever reason. It would cost the investigating force a large amount of money, with no benefit to the investigation. Prisoners would not be transferred if ill or otherwise unfit to travel.

Robert Smith: The implication of what the Minister has just said is that, although she does not want to place in the Bill any process by which the prisoner could change their mind, even after this stage had been reached the authorities could decide that the prisoner was not going to co-operate and that it would not be worth the effort of transferring them.

Caroline Flint: The suggestion would be that, in order to transfer a prisoner, there would have to be a voluntary agreement to do so. There would be no merit in the investigating officers pursuing such an action if the person were unwilling to take part. We want to avoid a situation in which, after months of work, someone decides at the last minute and for no good reason that they do not want a transfer.

Robert Smith: rose—

James Paice: rose—

Caroline Flint: I shall not give way, because I have answered the question on this matter.
	We want a process that is understood by the investigating officers and the prisoners concerned. These provisions are used in other parts of UK law relating to the transfer of prisoners. Under sections 5 and 6 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, the UK can request that a prisoner held overseas be transferred to the UK, and it can transfer prisoners out of the UK when other countries make requests for prisoners here to be transferred to that country. Clauses 47 and 48 of the Bill implement different arrangements, enabling a country to make a request to transfer a prisoner from its own territory when its own investigations require the presence of the prisoner in another country. These clauses reflect the terms used not only in the 1990 Act, but in the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984, section 1(6) of that which prohibits a prisoner from withdrawing consent once granted. That provision is therefore contained in another piece of UK legislation.
	Repatriation—permanently transferring a prisoner from one country to another to serve the remainder of their sentence—is a much more definite and final act than the one that we are talking about in this Bill, which simply deals with the temporary transfer of a prisoner to assist with a specific aspect of an investigation. Having different arrangements in this Bill would call into question the basis of existing related legislation. Finally, the warrant in this section is issued by the Secretary of State, not by a court, so the amendment is incorrect in referring to a power of the court that does not exist. For these reasons, we cannot accept the amendments, and I urge the House to resist them.

Alistair Carmichael: I would disagree with very little that the Minister has said. She spoke at some length about the safeguards that are in place prior to the granting of the warrant, and I commend her on the thoroughness of her approach to that. Had I had any quibble with the provisions in the clause, I would have tabled an amendment, but I did not. Instead, I tabled a tightly framed amendment relating to the withdrawal of consent after the issue of a warrant.
	I asked the Minister in an intervention whether a warrant issued by the Secretary of State could be the subject of a bill of suspension. Those who advise the Minister did not pick up on that intervention, so I do not expect her to be able to answer it off pat. An answer may be forthcoming even as I speak. It is not unknown for bolts of lightening to hit Ministers in these circumstances.
	If it is possible to suspend a warrant, it is still possible to get round this provision. The bill of suspension is an unnecessarily cumbersome procedure in these circumstances. Is it still a remedy available to citizens affected by this provision? I do not know whether the Minister has an answer for me. One can never say never, but I suspect that if a bill of suspension were not competent, a petition to nobile officium would remain competent. In Scots law at least, there is always a means by which one can find a remedy when no other exists.

Caroline Flint: The question which the hon. Gentleman alludes to involves a complicated part of Scottish law and I do not have the answer to hand. We may have to consult further on that point to see how it would fit in with the exercise of a warrant to transfer a prisoner. I shall get back to him on that point if that is helpful to him.

Alistair Carmichael: That would be helpful to me and, no doubt, to others who will deal with this legislation in the courts if and when it makes its way on to the statute book. However, even under subsection (6) as it stands, a prisoner could avoid being transferred. The procedure is exceptionally lengthy, cumbersome and expensive. Surely the sensible thing would be to allow the amendment in the terms that we have proposed to enable consent to be withdrawn on cause shown.
	I cannot say that the Minister has put any argument for refusing the amendment. However, we will clearly not make any progress with it, so with some reluctance and disappointment, and with all the questions that we have at the start of the debate still unanswered, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 82
	 — 
	Foreign Surveillance Operations

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 55, line 44 [Clause 82], at end insert—
	'( ) the officer does not seek to stop or question the person under surveillance'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 18 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto:
	Amendment No. 32, in page 56, line 43 [Clause 82], at end insert
	'"Enters the United Kingdom" shall mean when the officer arrives at a port or airport in the United Kingdom or when a train on which he is travelling emerges from the tunnel into the UK.'.

David Heath: We now come to a group that is again, I am delighted to say, the subject of qualified harmony. By accepting the arguments, as the Government amendment shows, the Minister has avoided the inevitability of the Bill returning from the other end of the corridor with the inclusion of something similar to the original amendment to clause 82 passed in the other place. That would be unfortunate, because I do not think that there was any difference of opinion between the Opposition parties and the Government on the intention, but there was a distinct difference on whether this provision should be included in the clause. The Government felt that it was not necessary—perhaps they still feel that—whereas many others felt that it was extremely important.
	The issue is whether an officer from overseas entering this country while performing a covert surveillance operation should be prohibited from stopping, searching or questioning the person under surveillance. We know that there is no difference between us on the intention that such officers should have no such ability. That was clear in the Schengen handbook and the protocols. The question is whether that should be explicit in the Bill. It was felt by a majority in the other place that it should, but in Committee the view of the Government was that the amendment to that effect passed in the other place should be excised without providing an effective alternative.
	The argument in Committee was interesting. The Government's principal objection was that the other place had framed its amendment in the form of a prohibition. They felt that that was not acceptable in terms of parliamentary draftsmanship and that they would be much happier with a qualification under subsection (4). I set myself the task of finding a form of words that would meet the Government's objection and fulfil our common objective, and that is amendment No. 13. Though I say it myself, it is a brief and elegant way of incorporating the sentiment.
	Subsequently, the Government tabled their own amendment No. 18, which comes to the same thing. I am grateful to the Minister for producing that amendment, as it is extremely helpful to us. However, I have two quibbles with it. They are minor quibbles rather than quibbles of substance. The first is that it is slightly clumsy and long-winded, but that is a matter of style rather than substance. It is perhaps inevitable that I happen to prefer my wording.
	My second quibble is dealt with in my amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 18. The Government's amendment contains a potential pitfall. It would insert the words
	"but no surveillance is lawful by virtue of this subsection if the officer subsequently seeks to stop and question the person in relation to the relevant crime".
	If that is understood to mean during the process of covert surveillance within the United Kingdom, that is fine, but that is not what it says. The word "subsequently" creates a difficulty.
	I shall put a hypothetical case to the Minister. Supposing that a Belgian police officer was investigating a smuggling operation between Belgium and Britain.

David Blunkett: Chocolate.

David Heath: All right, the smuggling of chocolate, although I am not sure that that is the most heinous crime even under the current provisions of criminal law. If it pleases the Home Secretary, let us suppose that the person is smuggling chocolate between Brussels and Dover. Under the provisions of the Bill, the Belgian police officer properly undertakes covert surveillance in the United Kingdom. He does not seek to stop and question the person—who incidentally is a British subject—in Dover, and he complies entirely with the legislation.
	The police officer returns to Brussels and so does the person under surveillance. That British subject commits further acts in Brussels in connection with the smuggling operation for which the officer stops, questions and arrests him. It transpires that the crime committed under Belgian law is part of a conspiracy based in Britain, and should be prosecuted by the British authorities—a huge conspiracy of chocolate smuggling, according to the Home Secretary.
	The person is brought back to Britain to stand trial—but under the wording in Government amendment No. 18, because the officer subsequently stopped and questioned that person, albeit in Belgium and not in London, the evidence that that officer can provide by virtue of the covert surveillance in the United Kingdom is no longer admissible in a British court. That is not the intended consequence. It may be a very fanciful consequence, and a very extraordinary sequence of events might be required to bring it about; but it is nevertheless a possible consequence of the unqualified use of the word "subsequently".
	That difficulty would be entirely removed by the addition of the words "in the United Kingdom", which would make it absolutely clear that the surveillance is invalidated only if the person concerned is stopped and searched here. I put it to the Minister that we could remedy a potential difficulty quite happily by that means. I hope that my argument has been cogent and not too complicated, and I hope that the Minister will either accept my wording or amend the existing wording by means of a Government amendment. In any event, I am glad that we have won the basic argument, and grateful to the Minister for listening carefully to what we have had to say.

James Paice: I, too, welcome Government amendment No. 18. In Committee, the Government were determined, despite behind-the-scenes discussions, to reject out of hand the Lords amendment proposing the removal of a subsection from the Bill, and to revert to the position that obtained when the Bill was presented to the other place—only for wiser heads to prevail later.
	Let me chide the Minister slightly by reminding her that in Committee she said
	"However, I am being asked to withdraw my amendment and allow an imperfect bit of the Bill to go forward."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 June 2003; c. 267.]
	I suggest that seeking to amend the Bill was tantamount to admitting that she was allowing an imperfect Bill to go forward at the time, but I am glad that the Government have seen the necessity of making the position absolutely clear.
	I understand the Minister's reasons for not liking the original Lords amendment. It was effectively a double negative, making illegal something that was already illegal. The Minister and, in different terms, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), have come up with wordings that serve exactly the same purpose and achieve the same ends by ensuring that someone being followed by an overseas officer cannot be stopped and searched.
	I have discussed the matter with my colleagues in the other place, to whom the Bill will have to return. I cannot prejudge or commit myself to what they will decide, but I understand that they are content with the Minister's amendment, and I welcome her albeit belated recognition that the position should be stated clearly.
	Amendment No. 32 relates to the definition of United Kingdom territory. It seeks to add to the Bill words used by the Minister in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) rightly pointed out that where the territory entered by the overseas officer began was open to debate. Did it begin with the beginning of airspace, or with our territorial waters? What would happen if a surveillance officer was in a boat only a mile or so from the shores of Britain, watching the famous chocolate smuggler coming over from Belgium with his chocolate? The boat might be in British territorial waters.
	In reply, the Minister said
	"We will consider the UK to have been entered when the foreign officer arrives at a port or airport or, in the case of Eurostar, when the train leaves the tunnel and enters Kent."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 June 2003; c. 288.]
	That is a very precise definition. As I implied, there could have been other terminologies—especially in respect of the tunnel, which has led to a situation unique to this country. British territory is normally considered to begin halfway through the tunnel, and we have customs officers operating in France, but there is a debate about the location of the boundary. In Committee, however, the Minister clearly stated that in that instance—probably one of the more common instances—the UK would be considered to have been entered when the train left the tunnel and entered Kent. All we have tried to do is put that into the Bill, which I think is entirely reasonable. I hope that the Minister will accept that hers are the correct words, and that they should therefore be in the Bill.
	The fundamental point is that the words "enters the United Kingdom" are vague and, as I have tried to demonstrate, open to different interpretations. Earlier today, the Minister agreed that the Bill should be clear about what it means. I hope she also agrees—she did nod just now—that "enters the United Kingdom" is vague. We now seek to turn her words into clarity in the Bill, and I hope that she will be able—perhaps uniquely—to incorporate her own words in legislation.

Caroline Flint: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) had me slightly worried. I thought that I was going to disagree with something with which I hoped to agree. By the end of his speech, however, I realised that we would be able to give him some comfort, particularly in regard to the words "in the United Kingdom".
	I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), for amendment No. 13. We discussed the issue at length in Committee—we discussed what constituted hot pursuit and hot, lukewarm or cold surveillance. Although not convinced at the end of our proceedings, I said that I would see whether we could come up with a form of words that would deal with Members' concerns without making a fool of the law. The Liberal Democrats have obviously been working on their own wording, but I am pleased to say that during the recess our officials were beavering away to produce an acceptable amendment.
	I hope—and I think what has been said so far suggests—that the amendment's response to what was said in Committee makes it clear that when foreign officers conduct relevant surveillance in the UK, that surveillance will no longer be lawful if officers subsequently stop and question the target about the crime. However, we do not think that such a situation is likely to arise. As I said in Committee, the Schengen convention provides explicitly that foreign officers may neither challenge nor arrest the target. To stop and question the target about the crime would not be consistent for the purposes of covert surveillance. There would be no operational advantage, and there would be risks of legal action against the foreign officers.
	If the foreign officers identified themselves to the target, he would have no obligation to speak to them or even to remain in their presence. They would have no power to detain him physically or to force him to answer questions. Indeed, were they to detain or physically restrain him, they might be committing assault, and could therefore be prosecuted or sued for damages by him.
	However, the Government appreciate that the amendment, as an unequivocal declaration in the Bill, would reflect the existing clear understanding between the Schengen states that to stop and question the target within the framework of cross-border surveillance is not acceptable.
	The Government's amendment differs from amendment No. 13 in that, although it would be a distinct part of what will be subsection (4) of section 76A of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, it would be distinguished from the existing conditions specified in the subsection. At present, the subsection provides that relevant surveillance by foreign officers during the permitted period is lawful for all purposes if the conditions in the subsection are satisfied. The amendment removes that cover of lawfulness if the target is subsequently stopped and questioned in relation to the relevant crime, even if all his specified conditions are satisfied.
	There is a further difference in the drafting, in that we have not used the phrase "stop or question". Article 40 of the Schengen convention provides that the foreign officers conducting the surveillance may not challenge the person under observation. We interpret "challenge" as meaning "stop and question", which in our view better reflects the convention's intention. A further amendment has been tabled to Government amendment No. 18, and I am pleased to say that we are able to accept it because it provides clarification. The illuminating example of Belgian chocolate smuggling focused our attention on how the law might be applied, and it is no bad thing to try to create a practical situation to which to apply the Bill. I therefore hope that the House will accept amendment No. 18, as amended by amendment (a), and that hon. Members will not press amendment No. 13 to a vote.
	Let me now deal with amendment No. 32, which, as has been pointed out, looks very familiar because it is very similar to what I said in Committee. It will come as no surprise to the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) when I say that I find the amendment very attractive. However, although I support its purpose, it should not be included in the Bill, and I shall try to explain why.
	We had a lengthy discussion in Committee in which we tried to grapple with real-life scenarios. For example, we considered the question of at what point someone travelling by air would be in British airspace, and at what point those travelling by ferry or hovercraft would be in British waters. As I explained in Committee, the term "enters the United Kingdom" will indeed be interpreted as meaning when a foreign officer arrives at a port or airport or, in the case of Eurostar, when the train leaves the tunnel. I said that this was a practical approach. It is a workable definition that provides a point that can readily be identified by officers, who cannot afford to be distracted from immediate operational imperatives by questions about the precise moment at which they enter British airspace or waters. That approach is also in line with the Schengen convention's intention that the foreign officer conducting the surveillance must notify the authorities of the visited state immediately that the border has been crossed. Clause 82(6) uses the phrase:
	"immediately after the officer enters the United Kingdom".
	In the Government's view, in the case of entry by sea or by air, that phrase can be interpreted as meaning as soon as the foreign officer arrives at the port or airport, because only then can he make contact with our own officers.
	However, the underlying approach that I described is a general one. Although we intend that it should be adhered to, it is difficult to find a precise wording that would be appropriate in practical terms. Indeed, that is my difficulty with the proposed amendment: its wording is not precise and it is also too narrow. For example, the precise moment at which a person enters a seaport could appropriately be regarded as when the vessel enters the harbour, when it docks, when the target disembarks, or when he passes through passport control or customs control. Indeed, it is possible that a particular vessel might not arrive at port at all. An incident might occur at the port in question, causing the vessel to be docked for some hours. Foreign officers could use that as an opportunity to connect with their UK counterparts, in order to pick up the surveillance when they disembark. So particular circumstances could arise in which it would be possible and appropriate to regard the five-hour period as commencing before the vessel arrives at the port.
	These practical issues must of course be addressed, but not in the Bill, as I said in Committee. The appropriate place in which to set out the Government's approach, and to explain more precisely what is meant by "enters the United Kingdom", is the Schengen handbook. As was pointed out in Committee, the handbook is a practitioners' document that is constantly updated, and which can therefore be amended from time to time, as appropriate, to take account of evolving experience in operating the convention. What is important is that the definitions and explanations we provide in the handbook are in line with the practical approach that I have described.
	I recognise that the courts' interpretation of the term "enters the United Kingdom" might not be in line with the practical approach that I have described. In the event that the courts ruled that a different approach was necessary, we would need to modify our entries in the Schengen handbook. In that way, the new practicalities would be made clear to our law enforcement agencies and to their counterparts abroad. I am grateful to hon. Members for this opportunity to provide further elaboration.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; otherwise, I would not be able to respond to her remarks. In giving her reasons for rejecting my amendment, she has emphasised the huge confusion that will arise and illustrated precisely why we feel that the amendment is necessary. I understand the case that she makes, but it will lead to even more confusion. Who will determine when the clock starts ticking for the five-hour period? If it is the overseas surveillance officers who will make that decision, what is to prevent them from counting the five hours from the point at which they want to start counting? I am thinking in particular of the situation that the Minister describes—of a boat that is just offshore, either in or just outside the harbour. Someone has to start counting the five-hour period, but it surely should not be the person who is supposed to keep to it.

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman outlines the difficulty in establishing in the Bill a precise definition that can cover the practical implications. That is why the handbook is so important, and why the surveillance commissioner has a very important role in monitoring the ways in which the surveillance powers outlined in the Bill are used. We discussed in Committee the question of how to deal with foreign officers who do not comply with surveillance rules. As I said then, each activity undertaken would have to be accountable, and the surveillance commissioner would have to deal with any discrepancies arising. In terms of carrying out their functions in this regard, foreign officers would have to keep in touch with the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
	The hon. Gentleman highlights the difficulty in trying to apply these powers without a practical example to address. I stand by my position: the wording in the Bill is the best way forward and the practitioners of the Schengen handbook will undertake to update or to vary the practical application, subject to the rulings of the courts. The Schengen handbook should reflect practical application, and amendments should be made within that to reflect changes to the practical definitions that may be required in the light of operational experience.

Alistair Carmichael: I want to be sure that I understand the Minister. The Schengen handbook and NCIS guidance are exactly that: guidance. As I think the hon. Lady said earlier, ultimately it is the courts that will determine whether an act has been carried out within the five-hour limit. Is she really saying that the Government will give best-guess guidance at the moment, but that, if it all goes wrong and they lose a court case, they will change the guidance in future?

Caroline Flint: No, I am saying that it is difficult, for the reasons that I have outlined, to determine the absolute point at which a person is on UK soil, and to include that definition in the Bill. This issue would therefore better be covered within the Schengen handbook, which is the practitioners' guide. It will be constantly updated and can be amended to take account of evolving experience in operating the convention. What is important is that the definitions and explanations that we provide in the handbook are in line with the practical approach that I have described. As I said, the courts' interpretation of the phrase "enters the United Kingdom" might not be in line with this approach. In the event that the courts ruled that a different approach was necessary, we would need to modify our entries in the Schengen handbook.
	After much discussion in Committee, we feel that safeguards are in place; indeed, there are other safeguards as well. As was pointed out in relation to other possible surveillance infringements, the surveillance commissioner will take up and monitor each case. On NCIS guidance, its officers have the power to tell foreign officers to stop at any time—they have the power to tell those officers when to stop surveillance. Indeed, it is NCIS with which foreign officers will need to keep in touch.
	For those reasons, I am pleased to meet hon. Members halfway in respect of issues of surveillance, but we feel that the particular wording in the amendment would create problems for the future without allowing the required flexibility in respect of those powers.

David Heath: I consider this afternoon to be a minor triumph, and I shall leave the Chamber rather pleased with the progress that we have made in respect of a couple of areas.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) made a valiant attempt to provide precision in an area that remains very imprecise. It seems inevitable that if something can be overturned by the courts, it will eventually be overturned by them. Without the necessary precision, the courts will make an interpretation, which may be adverse to whatever guidance is given.
	As an island state entering the Schengen agreement for the first time, we are almost unique. I say almost unique, because although other member states are not islands, they nevertheless have maritime borders, and I am sure that something similar must occasionally have occurred in respect of the current operation of the Schengen protocols between, say, Sweden and Germany. Nevertheless, we are entering a new area, so it is important to have as watertight a definition as possible. The better the formulation within the handbook, the more likely are we to avoid aborted cases when a court rules evidence as non-admissible on the grounds that provisions have been inadvertently broken.
	It is, of course, in everyone's interest not to break the rules, and it is not in the interest of an overseas officer to stay longer than required, because to do so will be a waste of time. It is not in the interest of the National Criminal Intelligence Service to give advice to those officers, who will want to use the evidence provided by the surveillance operation. Any imprecision would be extremely unhelpful.

Alistair Carmichael: My hon. Friend is right that it is in everyone's interest to work within the rules, which is why we need to know exactly what the rules are. Leaving it to our best-guess guidance in the handbook and refining it when the courts tell us we have got it wrong is simply not satisfactory.

David Heath: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend and indeed with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. I hope that the Home Office will give careful thought to providing as much precision as possible.
	On the subject of stopping and questioning, I am delighted with the Minister's response, as she would expect me to be. I shall adopt a term used in parliamentary procedure and hardly anywhere else, and say that it would be churlish of me to persist with amendment No. 13 in the face of the Minister's agreement to accept my amendment to her amendment No. 18. I shall formally move my amendment (a) in due course, and in respect of amendment No. 13, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 82
	Foreign Surveillance Operations
	Amendment proposed: No. 18, in page 56, line 6, at end insert—
	'but no surveillance is lawful by virtue of this subsection if the officer subsequently seeks to stop and question the person in relation to the relevant crime'.—[Caroline Flint.]
	Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment: (a), in line 2, after 'person', insert 'in the United Kingdom'.—[Mr. Heath.]
	Amendment No. 18, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4
	 — 
	Terrorist Property: Freezing Orders

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 67, line 18, leave out from 'means' to end of line 21 and insert
	'the Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence adopted by the Council of the European Union on 22nd July 2003'.
	No. 20, in page 67, line 23, leave out 'a prescribed provision' and insert 'Article 3(2)'.
	No. 21, in page 67, line 34, leave out 'a prescribed document' and insert 'the form of certificate'.
	No. 22, in page 71, line 19, leave out from 'means' to end of line 22 and insert
	'the Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence adopted by the Council of the European on 22nd July 2003'.
	No. 23, in page 71, line 24, leave out 'a prescribed provision' and insert 'Article 3(2)'.
	No. 24, in page 71, line 35, leave out 'a prescribed document' and insert 'the form of certificate'.
	No. 25, in page 75, line 13, leave out from 'means' to end of line 16 and insert
	'the Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence adopted by the Council of the European Union on 22nd July 2003'.
	No. 26, in page 75, line 18, leave out 'a prescribed provision' and insert 'Article 3(2)'.
	No. 27, in page 75, line 29, leave out 'a prescribed document' and insert 'the form of certificate'.—[Caroline Flint.]

Schedule 5
	 — 
	Minor and Consequential Amendments

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 80, line 17, at end insert—
	'The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33)
	12A The Criminal Justice Act 1988 as follows.
	12B In section 24 (business etc.documents), in subsection (4), for "section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 7 of the Crime (International Cooperation) Act 2003".
	12C In section 26 (statements in documents that appear to have been prepared for the purposes of criminal proceedings or investigations), for "section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 7 of the Crime (International Cooperation) Act 2003".
	12D In paragraph 6 of Schedule 13 (evidence before courtsmartial etc.)—
	(a) in subparagraph (1)—
	(i) for "section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 7 of the Crime (International Cooperation) Act 2003", and
	(ii) for "letters of request or corresponding documents" there is substituted "requests for assistance in obtaining outside the United Kingdom evidence", and
	(b) in subparagraph (4), for "letters of request or corresponding documents" there is substituted "requests for assistance in obtaining evidence".'.
	No. 29, in page 83, line 19, at end insert—
	'The Criminal Justice (Evidence, Etc.) (Northern Ireland)Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1847 (N.I. 17))
	33A The Criminal Justice (Evidence, Etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 is amended as follows.
	33B In Article 4 (business etc. documents), in paragraph (4), for "section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 7 of the Crime (International Cooperation) Act 2003".
	33C In Article 6 (statements in documents that appear to have been prepared for the purposes of criminal proceedings or investigation), for "section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 7 of the Crime (International Cooperation) Act 2003".'.
	No. 30, in page 87, line 20, at end insert—
	'54A In section 27 (Lord Advocate's direction), in subsection (2), for "section 4(2B) of the Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990" there is substituted "section 15(4) of the Crime (International Cooperation) Act 2003".'.—[Caroline Flint.]

Schedule 6
	 — 
	Repeals

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 90, line 19, column 2, at end insert—
	'In Schedule 4, paragraphs 6(2) and 8.'.—[Caroline Flint.]
	Order for Third Reading read.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I should like to thank my hon. Friends and both Opposition parties for their positive and co-operative approach throughout the Bill's passage. Our discussions have helped to improve and clarify the Bill, and I hope that the arguments are now more or less settled.
	My thanks go to all hon. Members who contributed to the debates in Committee. I particularly thank the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) for their contributions to the constructive spirit in which the Bill has been debated today. I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), from whom I took over responsibility for the Committee after his well-deserved promotion. He made a major contribution to the initial stages of the Bill.
	I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr Jamieson) and for Nottingham, East and other Labour colleagues who supported us in Committee, and such as my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward). I thank those Labour colleagues most profoundly, as the Bill is the first measure for which I have been responsible and I am now seeing it through to its Third Reading here today.
	My thanks also go to noble Lords in another place—particularly Lord Filkin—for their excellent work in sending us the Bill in such good shape. I hope that when it returns to them, they will be satisfied with the further changes that we have made.
	The Bill, though technical, marks a significant advance in co-operation against serious crime and terrorism within the EU. International crime affects us all. Reduced border controls and the growth of international trade mean that crime is not confined by national boundaries, so our investigation services also have to work across national boundaries and co-operate with EU states and those outside the EU in the fight against crime. We are already working with our EU partners, but the Bill will enable us to work even more closely and more effectively with them, as well as more widely with our partners outside the EU.
	Part of the Bill will make the changes needed to enable the UK to participate in the Schengen agreement. The Schengen arrangements provide a clear framework for effective co-operation, especially for cross-border police operations. It is some time since we first proposed that the UK should participate in the police and judicial co-operation elements of Schengen. With this Bill in place, we will be able to move forward rapidly to make that proposal a reality.
	The Bill is about fighting crime on an international and European level and is also associated with fighting crime at home. We have a record number of police officers, we are tackling antisocial behaviour, and we are assessing the problems that blight our communities—particularly drugs and human trafficking, which recognise no national boundaries. The passing of the Bill will partly help to deal with those problems. There is an onus on us all to ensure that our constituents understand how important this Bill is to fighting crime in Europe and internationally, as well as to fighting it in the neighbourhoods that we represent. I commend the Bill to the House.

James Paice: As the Minister reminded us, the Committee stage of the Bill witnessed—not for the first time, because of the way in which we operate—a change of Minister mid-way through proceedings. I congratulated the Minister at the time on her promotion, and I do so again tonight. She has acquitted herself well as a new Minister and I am grateful for her constructive approach to most of our deliberations, although we still have an element of dissent on one or two areas.
	I echo the Minister's congratulations to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who has moved on to a more powerful position—greater may not be the right word—as deputy Chief Whip. The Minister will be conscious of his presence all the time. I also echo her comments about the other members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), the Liberal Democrat Front Benchers and others who participated in making the Bill's passage through Committee mostly constructive.
	I cannot help but recall that a large part of the Bill is a repetition of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. The Minister's predecessor reminded us of that frequently in Committee. We were either told that something had to be in the Bill because it was in the 1990 Act or that things had to be changed because the 1990 Act was not quite right. The Government's arguments in Committee had an element of inconsistency, but that is nothing new.
	The Bill seeks to put into statute the undertakings and commitments given by the Government on Schengen and the mutual legal assistance convention. As the Minister rightly said, it addresses several issues of international crime. Perhaps uniquely for a Bill on crime, it does not create a raft of new offences. Most crime Bills create many new offences, but this Bill is largely not about such creation. It is about improving co-operation on international crime, and the Opposition support such moves. We strongly support the provisions on driving disqualifications, on the mutual provision of evidence and, of course, on the issue of jurisdiction for terrorist offences. The latter is a sensible extension of legislation. As I said earlier, we have some reservations on aspects of investigation of banking transactions and cross-border surveillance.
	I welcome the belated recognition of the validity of our argument on confusion, but I remain concerned about the implications for this country, because it is—as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) remarked—relatively unusual in Europe in being an island nation, although we do have one land boundary with Ireland. There is a bridge between Denmark and Sweden, which provides a comparison to the channel tunnel. We have reservations about how the legislation will work and we will watch carefully. The issues of drugs and people trafficking—an horrendous crime, especially when it involves children, which is worsening all the time—require cross-border co-operation, and we will always support the Government on measures to address them, as we have done on the issue of terrorism.
	Our reservations are not substantial. The amendment in the other place that the Government overturned has now been put right and I am grateful for that. We will send the Bill back to the other place with our good wishes. The Opposition will not oppose Third Reading, and I congratulate the Minister on the way in which she has handled the first, but not the only, Bill that she will deal with in her job.

David Heath: Like the proverbial month of March, the Bill came in like a lion and went out like a lamb. There was much huffing and puffing in the early stages of consideration of the Bill's consequences for sovereignty and the state of policing. The careful consideration that the Committee gave the Bill was, however, based not on any false fears about its consequences but on an understanding of the importance of international co-operation in fighting crime effectively, on an understanding of the importance of the provisions on extra-territorial jurisdiction in terrorist crime and on a wish to get the practicalities and the details right.
	The approach that pervaded our consideration was based on that constructive principle. We asked how we could improve the Bill, and the areas that gave cause for concern included the issue of reciprocity and whether it was working effectively; the resources available to give meaning to the provisions, and I still have concerns about effective resourcing of our border control services and will wish to return to that issue; and the structure of our border controls, because too often they are the responsibility of different Departments and could be more effectively applied. The same applies to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and it is unfortunate that the Schengen information system for the UK is called NSIS, which is pronounced in the same way as NCIS. That could cause great confusion and I wish that somebody had thought of that before developing the acronym.
	Proper concerns were expressed about the integrity of our security systems and they have largely been addressed. Concern was also expressed about the resilience of the information bank, and we are still concerned about the amount of information that is held and whether it is sufficiently robust in its accuracy and about who has access to it. The Bill widens powers of the state that are essentially intrusive, so it is right that we have had repeated arguments about the proportionality of intrusion and the problems that it seeks to remedy, and whether the Bill is couched in terms that are legally appropriate.
	We have made progress. By common consent, we have established a dialogue with the present Minister, whom I congratulate on taking up the reins of the Bill halfway through Committee and seeing it to a successful conclusion, and with her predecessor, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, for whom I have great respect. He contributed greatly to our proceedings. I also congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), about whom I was a little rude earlier, but whom we were happy to welcome to the Committee. I know that I get the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) into terrible trouble by complimenting him on all occasions on the sensible way in which he provides support to our Committees, but it is appreciated and makes for better control of Government business than the alternative approach. I commend him for that. I also commend Conservative Front Benchers and my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who says that I claim responsibility for all his triumphs, although I cannot ever remember that happening. I am tempted to say that I normally try to dissociate myself from most of what he says, but that would be unfair. My hon. Friend has played a very useful role, and I am grateful to him—especially because, as I said on Second Reading, he has experience of serving these overseas processes. As far as I know, that makes him unique in the House. His level of expertise is therefore unmatched.
	We have been well served by all the staff associated with the Bill. We will send back to the other place a Bill that has been marginally improved. I should have liked it to be improved more, but I recognise that it is nevertheless an extremely valuable Bill and that it will do a lot that is necessary when it comes to providing an effective basis for fighting crime internationally.
	I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on the two motions.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Contracting Out

That the draft Contracting Out (Local Education Authority Functions) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.

International Immunities and Privileges

That the draft Vienna Document 1999 (Privileges and Immunities) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.—[Ms. Bridget Prentice.]
	Question agreed to.

INNER-CITY POVERTY (LEEDS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Ms Bridget Prentice.]

George Mudie: I very much welcome this opportunity to debate the real challenges stemming from inner-city poverty in Leeds. The problem is especially severe in my constituency of Leeds, East, although I am sure that those of my colleagues who are present will present their own experiences to the House if time allows.
	I thank Mr. Speaker for allowing me to initiate this debate. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for telling the recent party conference that No. 10 is now in listening mode. Many people hope that that is true, although many are cynical about it. I raise this topic in the belief that my right hon. Friend is prepared to open up debate, especially on domestic policy—as long as sensitive matters such as tuition fees are avoided. I hope that the time is right to raise pertinent questions about inner-city poverty, and about how we are dealing with it.
	There is no argument about the problems caused by poverty in the inner city. Leeds is one of the most prosperous English cities, but great poverty and deprivation exist there side by side with wealth and material success. The scale of the deprivation is debatable, but a few statistics will give the House an idea of the size of the disparities that exist between communities.
	In Leeds, 25 per cent. of households claim some sort of means-tested council benefits. That figure of one in four rises to 40 per cent. of households in some inner-city wards, and reaches 60 per cent. in smaller neighbourhoods. Although recorded crime is decreasing in Leeds as a whole, the rates vary. The lowest level of domestic burglary is 11 per 1,000 households—I am tempted to think that that is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon)—but that figure rises to more than 126 per 1,000 households. Where someone lives therefore has a very clear effect on the burglary and crime rates they experience.
	Death rates from heart disease also vary, rising from a low of 180 deaths per 100,000 people to a high of 320 per 100,000. That gives some idea of the effect of diet and poverty. Similarly, the rate of teenage conception—among girls aged between 15 and 17—is zero in some wards, but rises to 102 per 1,000 in other wards.
	Figures show that in some schools, 40 per cent. of school leavers achieve the magic five GCSEs at grades A to C. Some schools achieve an average of 70 per cent., but in some inner-city schools the level is as low as 4 per cent. Unemployment averages 3 per cent. for the city. In some wards, the level is 1 per cent., but in some inner-city wards the rate is as high as 12 per cent. The ethnic groups do even worse, with those in the Afro-Caribbean community suffering an unemployment rate of 24 per cent.
	Housing is also very important. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) is to respond to the debate. Although I would prefer her constituency to be called Castleford and Pontefract, I have the greatest respect for her and I hope that she will communicate to her colleagues the seriousness of some of the housing problems in Leeds. My predecessor was Denis Healey, who noted in one of his books that the Harehills area had the second highest population density in western Europe. I think only Milan has a higher density.
	In Harehills, the accommodation consists of back-to-back houses or through-terraced houses, with sloping streets and no gardens. Even so, families have raised generations of children there, despite the lack of open space—there is no full-sized football pitch in the area, for example. The housing is disgraceful and a blot on the city, built the century before last for working men. It has been refurbished time and time again, but kids are still being raised and families are trying to lead normal lives there.
	I remember Chris Patten when he was Minister with responsibility for the environment coming to a meeting in my constituency—although he did not come to meet me, I hasten to add. He was so intrigued and shocked by what he saw that he had his driver take him round the area twice. He simply could not believe what it was like, but I suppose that the experience was good training for what he eventually encountered in Hong Kong.
	North of my area lie two large council estates that were built on either side of the second world war. They have their good pockets, but they are largely unattractive. They need either to be modernised and refurbished, or demolished and replaced. The scale of the problem is tremendous.
	I shall refer to this again, but so far nothing has happened to improve the housing deprivation in Leeds. That deprivation exists alongside the quality housing to be found in areas such as Elmet, where there are houses to die for. The disparity shows how different are the communities that exist in the one city.
	I want to mention too the bizarre behaviour of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of arm's-length management organisations. The Minister is thoughtful and sensitive, and therefore unlike many of her colleagues. The Department forced ALMOs on Leeds city council. I fought the imposition, and lost, but I was a lone voice, and such things happen. The Department said that ALMOs would bring in money to refurbish housing and resolve all the city's housing problems. The council did as it was told, and broke up its housing department into six ALMOs.
	Within six months of being set up, the ALMOs were inspected. Some of the officials in the ALMOs did not know the location of the areas that their bodies covered. They were inspected days or weeks after being appointed, and they were found wanting. In its wisdom, the Department has said that the ALMOs will not be given the money needed for capital spending. As a result, no refurbishment will take place. Is that not wonderful?
	None of the local government officers I know will have sleepless nights as a result of that. Some will even say, "So be it, it will save us a lot of work." It is not the ALMOs that are being punished, but the poor tenants who live and raise their families in substandard housing. What is the sense in penalising tenants because of the ALMO? In some circumstances, that might make sense, but to inspect the ALMOs within six months of their establishment and penalise them after some doubtful reports is extremely strange and I should love the Minister to raise the matter with her less sensitive colleagues.

Colin Challen: As my hon. Friend knows, I disagreed with his view about the creation of the ALMOs, but I agree 100 per cent. on his latter point. As a supporter of the concept, I perhaps wrongly did not anticipate that ALMOs would be inspected so soon after their creation. It was an unrealistic target to expect the ALMOs immediately to perform and gain stars so that they could obtain money. No one voted for them on the basis that they would be cheated—if that is the right word—out of their money owing to a bureaucratic inspection regime that they never understood.

George Mudie: My hon. Friend makes a good point and I am glad that he has now seen wisdom. He gives me an opportunity to discuss something about which there are many stories in Leeds—choice-based letting, which is badly harming ordinary people. So far, despite heavy pressure, my area is the only one to refuse to accept that lunatic system for allocating houses, which is causing real distress in Leeds.
	In Leeds—except on my patch—people are not offered a house, they have to bid for one. How can a blind lady on the housing list understand such a system? How can she see houses to make a bid? Last week, I visited the house of a poor lass who suffers so badly from Parkinson's that she cannot get out of her house because the stairs are so difficult. The last time she tried to go downstairs she fell. Yet presumably to get another house she has to get out to see the list. As she was in such a bad physical state, she was simply going to pen a letter.
	A woman who visited my surgery had raised her kids in a five-bedroomed house but she now lives there alone and wanted a one-bedroomed flat: impossible under choice-based letting because she did not have priority. In another case, a boy and girl at the sensitive ages of 13 and 11 were sharing a bedroom in a two-bedroomed house, yet there was no priority for overcrowding. The system has been forced on people on the ground: if they do not accept it, they will not get the money. We have set up ALMOs and changed our letting system, adversely affecting already disadvantaged people, yet we still do not get the money.
	As the time arrangements are propitious, I shall take this opportunity to raise another housing matter: equity release. I have dreamt of, sponsored, fought, argued and cajoled for an equity release scheme in my constituency. We have vacant land and a builder who specialises in building good houses cheaply. We have engineered a system whereby building societies will give mortgages that relate to rents. It is an honest attempt to move people from rented accommodation to homes of their own at very good rates. They can walk into a three-bedroomed semi that costs just above £50,000. Where could anyone get a new, three-bedroomed semi-detached house for about £50,000? Houses like that are worth £70,000 the minute people walk through the door, yet the Department would rather spend £15,000 doing up a council house that nobody much wants than give half that sum as a subsidy to persuade people to move from rented housing.
	On a series of points—welfare benefits, recorded crime, death rates, health, education, employment and housing—we can see disparities and problems.

Colin Burgon: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's standing in Leeds. He is an outstanding Member of Parliament who is well rooted in the locality. I am lucky enough to know his constituency fairly well as I was born on the Gipton estate and taught for about 16 years on the Seacroft estate. Did not both those estates represent radical solutions to the problems that Leeds faced at the time? What gave them cohesion was common employment in engineering and, especially, tailoring. But given that times have changed, does my hon. Friend not agree that we need radical solutions to give people the type of homes that they want to live in and to make those places attractive? Does he agree that local government should be the agency to deliver that, but that unfortunately, far too often, the Government—our Government—have been too critical of local government? Does he agree that they should adopt a far more positive role to enable local government to pursue radical solutions, as it did in the 1930s and 1940s?

George Mudie: That was an excellent contribution; my hon. Friend did not even take a breath. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) is a great admirer of Rev. Jenkinson, who designed and steered through the building of a number of such estates. They were seen as a great thing in the 1930s, because they got people out of the slums of inner-city Leeds. The difficulty is that 70 years have passed, and time and people have moved on. We have to move on, too, with solutions that are relevant to people. I cannot understand the Department wanting to put money into rented housing when for half the sum it could put people into owner occupation, bringing money to constituents of mine who would never have thought that they would receive such an amount of capital. Such a sum would not only offer them support but would give them something to hand on to their families.
	The Yorkshire Evening Post, thanks to the social awareness and concern of its excellent editor, Neil Hodgkinson, has been running a serious campaign, entitled "Life in Leeds". I have a copy of the paper and when I have held it up for the camera, I shall pass it to the Minister so that she can see how it approached and understood the issue. The paper stated that its campaign was
	"A major YEP investigation into the thousands of lives blighted by fear, crime, violence and poverty."
	Especially interesting was the headline, "People A City Forgot". That is how the Yorkshire Evening Post started its campaign on two-speed Leeds: inner-city Leeds, with all its deprivation, side by side with the affluent areas. There are four pages of stories from individual people all over Leeds—not only from my constituency but from those of other hon. Members—whose lives are being blighted by conditions in inner-city Leeds.

John Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for leading this debate and, to some extent, leading our city in the debate, as he led it when he was leader of the council.
	The economic question in Leeds is massive. Leeds was not just divided in the past; it is still dividing. Unemployment rates in some pockets are increasing, despite the fact that the overall rate is going down. We still give common assent to a trickle-down theory; if the city as a whole does well, we think that that will infiltrate all the nooks and crannies of unemployment. But unless we radically tackle unemployment and the life chances of the people in those corners, nothing will ever happen: the economy will turn down again and they will be completely left out. To echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon), as well as looking at housing, is it not time to look at radical community economic developments, including local provision of neighbourhood services, and radically to decentralise the provision of goods and services? I do not believe that 25,000 people will be working in call centres in 10 years' time. Voice chips will have replaced those jobs and people currently in low-paid work in our inner cities will be looking for alternative employment.

George Mudie: I totally agree with what my hon. Friend says, and I am glad that he put it in those terms because I am trying to make the point to the Minister that we must deal with inner-city problems urgently. Those problems fall into two categories: first, housing and, secondly, employment and skills—in other words, buildings and people—and unless we deal with them urgently, we will fail and we shall pass the existing inner city on to the next Government, who will have no interest in such things.
	If we had the political will, there is no reason why anyone should be unemployed in Leeds. Only 12,000 people in the whole city are registered as looking for work, but the city is supposed to gain 30,000 additional jobs in the next eight years. If we set our minds to it, we could improve training and skills. In fact, discussions are going on with the jobcentre, the Regional Development Agency and the hospital, which has a new cancer block, to find out whether we can start such a training scheme.
	It is we who are taking the initiative—not the Government—and we are so hopeful, optimistic and ambitious that we are looking to my hon. Friends' constituencies and to Batley and Bradford because we feel that, if we have the political will, we can not only wipe out unemployment in Leeds, but become an economic engine for the surrounding areas.

Harold Best: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this subject before the House. I should like to say something about the elements of poverty that exist in the city of Leeds. It is often not understood that poverty exists in the greener areas. I represent a constituency with some of the greenest and most wonderful, spectacular views, but with some of the most horrendous poverty, especially in housing. People tend to forget that Leeds is a two-river city. My constituency includes the River Wharf—a magnificent river—and some of the houses in that area were built earlier than those that my good friend referred to in his part of Leeds, and those houses are in desperate need of repair and rebuilding. We as a Government ought to be tackling such problems as a major priority, and putting people's needs at the centre of our agenda.

George Mudie: I totally agree with my hon. Friend.
	I want to return to the Yorkshire Evening Post campaign, which was praised by the Prime Minister, to whom Neil Hodgkinson presented a collection of the articles and analysis concerning the blighted lives faced by ordinary, decent people in Leeds. I have a copy, which I shall give with pleasure to my hon. Friend the Minister at the end of the debate. The Prime Minister is on record as thanking the YEP for its initiative, and he also conceded that
	"there is a mountain to climb."
	It is very interesting that, only six months ago, the Prime Minister came to Leeds, after five years of Labour Government, and conceded that there is a mountain to climb. If there is a mountain to climb after five years, I wonder how much time we feel we have left to get to the top of it.
	The Prime Minister went on to say:
	"There are too many people in the city missing out on the new opportunities and prosperity . . . and there are too many communities—some within a stone's throw of the thriving city centre—still crippled by multiple and inter-linked problems which remain among the deprived in the country."
	Those words from the Prime Minister should set the scene for this debate. The disparities and blighted lives that exist in the inner city are acknowledged by the Head of Government. There is no need to bandy statistics about: the problem is agreed, and the debate is about how we are dealing with it and, above all, about how quickly it will be resolved.
	Those are the reasons why I asked for the debate. We have been in government for six years. I acknowledge that various excellent initiatives have been taken—I guarantee that we will hear about them—but, as someone who lives in their constituency and spends all the recess and every weekend there, I have to say that they have only marginally improved the lot of my constituents, and my colleagues can speak for their own patches. Indeed, in preparing for the debate and trying to get the balance right and to be absolutely accurate, I spoke to everyone I met in my surgeries and as I went around the community, and they overwhelmingly think that things are getter worse, not better. After six years, I find that very worrying.
	The worrying thing is this. In the same papers, the Prime Minister acknowledges the problem, says that there is a mountain to climb, sees the problem first hand in Lincoln Green, but what does he do? As the booklet shows, the Prime Minister lists all the initiatives and the huge sums that are being spent—I fear that the Minister will do the same thing—but the worst thing that people can do is believe their own publicity. We in politics are always told that, and it is true. We cannot feed the hungry with statistics on national prosperity. We cannot tell a kid that he is well off because we have invested £1 million, or even £100 million. If the kid is hungry, he is hungry regardless of what the Government say they are spending.
	I should like the Government to listen. I do not exaggerate. I am talking about my constituency, and my constituents are hurting and their lot is not improving after six years. I thought we had a common objective of getting rid of inner-city poverty, but if we are still so far behind after six years, I wonder whether we should not be considering a change in direction.

Fabian Hamilton: I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating the debate. As he says, many parts of Leeds are extremely prosperous and unemployment is very low; indeed, my constituency was recently voted, on a league of altered data, one of the wealthiest in the entire country. But there are pockets of unemployment and deprivation that would match those anywhere in Great Britain or the rest of Europe. I am talking mainly about the Chapeltown area, and antisocial behaviour and crime blight the lives of people there, so I congratulate the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister on today's initiative. The problem involves crime related to crack cocaine, heroin and street gangs that use firearms and the most appalling violence against one another, but innocent victims get in the way. Does my hon. Friend agree that one way in which we can most improve the lives of the very poorest—apart from all the issues such as housing, job opportunities and training that he mentions—would be to ensure that the crackdown on crime really works and that the kind of antisocial behaviour that blights people's lives is removed?

George Mudie: I will certainly spell out later the effect of crime on ordinary people in my constituency, but the problem goes deeper than crime. I remember the Prime Minister once saying, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime," but I wonder whether we are getting the balance wrong. We have enough sticks and we are adding more sticks to the armoury, but I wish there were some carrots. I look at some of the kids on the estates and I cannot defend their behaviour. I attack their behaviour and I want them to be dealt with, but I look at the houses they come from, the peer pressure and the parents' behaviour, and I worry for the kids. I was proud to be a member of a Labour Opposition who made such statements, believed them and wanted to operate those policies. All the rhetoric about sticks and prisons came from the other side. That is part of the solution, but locking up a youngster should be the last recourse. I wish we had a more balanced policy of working with youngsters and offering them alternatives to running with their peers, misbehaving and being put under pressure to do drugs. I would like some balance to be put back in our criminal justice policy.
	After six years, with a lack of major physical and financial improvements in the lives of my constituents, we should have the humility to accept that a reappraisal of the strategy is required. If that does not happen, when we eventually leave office, we will leave the inner city much as we found it, and, by our policies, we will have failed to empower the bulk of our poorer constituents. We will therefore have failed to let them share in the general prosperity.
	I want to propose two things to the Minister. First, I invite her to visit my constituency, walk the streets, talk to the people and see whether I am exaggerating. Throughout the recess, I have been on the streets knocking on doors—not canvassing but speaking to people to find out whether they have anything to say, what their problems are and whether I can be of any help. Last Sunday morning, I met a lady who was washing her car in her drive. I asked her whether she had any problems. I quote her response:
	"Look at the tyre marks on the road. That's where the lads joyride in stolen cars each night. Over there is the barrier to divide the street. That is where they run the cars onto and then burn them out"—
	beside her house. She continued:
	"Let me show you the back kitchen window where at 6.30 in the morning when I was getting breakfast before leaving for work a brick came through"—
	thrown by people who were going to burgle her house whether she was in or not. She continued:
	"This is my car that gets damaged regularly. This is my house I hesitate to leave because I fear coming back to a burgled property."
	She went on to tell me that when she comes back with her groceries, she hurries inside the house because she fears that people are watching to see how many groceries she has, and that they will come in the house to get them.
	What did I say in response? I know the policies and the script, but we live in a verbal world of promises and policies, whereas that lady lives 24 hours a day in reality, and reality is nasty.
	In that one street, I met two pensioners who had lived there all their lives. It was a bit cold, but it was a sunny day, and, looking past them, I saw a beautiful back garden alive with flowers. Looking around, however, I saw shattered windows, damage, graffiti, and rubbish thrown in gardens. What did they say to me? They were bewildered at the violence, the neglect and the number of asylum seekers. In that one street, I have more asylum seekers than my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet has in his whole constituency. What does that do to relationships in that street and in that area? Above all, that lovely pair of pensioners, who have lived in Gipton all their lives, feel the indifference of anybody to their concerns. That is what they are faced with in their advanced years.
	With another pensioner and his wife—the Minister will be proud of me—I talked about pension credit and heating under the warm front arrangements. Wonderful stuff, to the script—the Prime Minister would be proud of me. As I went to their door, however, the fellow said casually to me that the doctors had sent him to St. James's to see a consultant about tumours on his bladder. He was sent within two weeks—good for the doctor—but the consultant bizarrely sent him back to the doctor. Does anyone on these Benches see any sense in that? The worrying thing was that he sat with me for 20 minutes having a conversation about pension credit and central heating and did not raise it. He only raised it casually, in conversation, as he was showing me out. That was the level of his expectations—he had not come to complain about it; he accepted it as one of those things. That is the stoicism of pensioners and ordinary, decent people who are being put through such things every day, week and month. That is all in one street.
	To take a different case, I met a young lad in his 30s whose wife had left him and who was raising three boys. He had been burgled twice—not only burgled; his house had been trashed. He was not in work and was very poor. He wants work, and the issue that I would raise is this: why on earth would he work when somebody in the street will burgle him if he spends his hard earned wages on anything? What does he make of it? He is broken-hearted. He does not know what he will do. He has to deal with poverty, bad housing, insecurity and raising three kids with decency.
	Again, that was in just one street. The sad thing is that on each of the Sundays on which I was out, although I was in different parts of the constituency, I heard the same tale. After all this time, that should not be happening. My colleagues and I, after all our years in local government, came here to put an end to that. Six years on, under a Labour Government, people are still living like that.
	What can we do? Let us understand that we may be spending enough. On that, I have no quarrel with the Chancellor or the Prime Minister. The Chancellor has put record sums into the spending Departments. What I want to know is whether we are spending it efficiently. Is the money coming through to the areas in need and being spent in the relevant way? I am suspicious of the Government's preoccupation with innovation. Anybody with feet in the community and any history of involvement in politics knows that the previous Government deliberately ran down the public services for 18 years. When we came to office, we did not need innovation. We needed more teachers, more doctors, and more police. Those are mainstream things—they are not glamorous or new, but they are what our constituents want. Youngsters would be taught better if we had more teachers, we would sleep safe in our bed if we had more police, people would be better looked after in hospitals if we had more nurses, and we would be seen more quickly by doctors if we had more of them. Those are all great things, but we are told, "No, it must be new; we must have innovation."
	Services and morale have suffered over the past few years. Instead of offering money to anyone and any organisation with a new idea, why was it not just piled into mainstream services? Why do we have to dream up a third way—a different way—of delivering public services? In my view, a lot of people are making a good living out of funds designed to get people out of poverty. We saw it over the years with the Tories, but it has been exacerbated. This week, I received a letter from a black and ethnic education group that has been set up, with a manager, project manager and assistant manager listed on the letterhead, all of them receiving good salaries. I would have preferred three black teachers in schools being good role models and providing an additional pair of hands, but somebody in some Department will have said, "No, this is new, it presses all the buttons, why don't we do it?" That has not helped and will not help any black kids—well, it has helped three, because they have got jobs. My people are still poor, but they are better advised on their poverty than they have ever been.
	The Government have lost interest in joined-up government. The rhetoric of our first few years has disappeared, as has the thinking behind it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) knows that each organisation defends its budget and tends to put its own interests in survival before the customer. Our rhetoric was about coming together, pooling funds and deciding how to deal with a common problem—it was good rhetoric in which we believed. However, joined-up government has not happened. Each organisation comes to the table to get its nose in the trough and to ensure that it gets money so that it is secure, while the customer comes way down the list.
	The Government should focus more fiercely. If their objective is to get rid of the inner city and the problems that characterise it, each locality should have a co-ordinated approach. All spending should be examined and it should be determined whether it helps to achieve success. In Leeds, different departments and agencies do things that cut across objectives and, occasionally, damage achievements. My colleagues will understand why I mention the magic words Education Leeds. We were unable to handle our education service, and following some colonial behaviour by the now Home Secretary, our education system was handed over to a private firm that sees politics and politicians as dirty words. It will not speak or listen to politicians and if it does listen, a behaviour pattern is triggered meaning that it does the exact opposite of what has been asked.
	My next point is something I do not joke about. The Government will deny it yet it has hampered their chances of achieving proper co-ordination, effective focusing and accountable joined-up thinking. The Government have a dislike and disdain for local government. Right from the start, they have been determined to avoid using it as a key player. Powers have been given to quangos and organisations that were dreamt up to circumvent local government. I talk from personal experience because although you would not believe this, Madam Deputy Speaker, I spent a brief period as a Minister—it was far too long in No. 10's eyes.
	I remember my first conversation with the permanent secretary at a dinner. I was responsible for training and enterprise councils, which were considered obnoxious organisations that spent funds along the lines that I suggested. I said that TECs should get in partnership with local government because, given that local government was responsible for the economic area and that skills training was important, the two should work together. I do not know whether I was more surprised by the permanent secretary's attack on local government when he took me outside and said, "You can't do that. You mustn't do that. That is not on the agenda", or by the fact that he dared to speak to me in such a fashion. I thought it strange that a permanent secretary should lecture a Minister that No. 10 did not like local government and say that I should not dare suggest that local government should take an interest in, and be worked with on, the local economy, because I thought that that was central to getting everything right in a vibrant local authority.
	Local government has been treated badly right from the start. All one gets from senior figures in the Government is derision of the ability of local councillors in general and local government as a whole. Perhaps someone should whisper in their ears the general view of the competence of Cabinet Ministers and national Government as a whole. That view might be slightly similar to the general view of local government. We need a bit of humility. The fact that local government has not been used as the co-ordinating force to bring everyone together to achieve joined-up thinking has damaged our move toward dealing with inner-city poverty.
	Where does this leave us? I do not expect, or want, even such a sensitive Minister as my hon. Friend to spend any time refuting my suggestions. I recognise that it is immodest impertinence for me to make suggestions even to a newly declared "listening Government". I would be delighted if the Minister left those parts of my speech alone, because it is not becoming for a Back Bencher of my standing even to put forward those suggestions. However, I want her to think about the reality of the impact that we have made in six years, because it is a serious matter.
	When I was leader of the council, I had a good nursery chairman and we had one of the best nursery building and child care programmes in the country—we were years ahead of even Newcastle, although we have always been ahead of Newcastle. I remember saying to my delightfully hard working colleague, "It's not working." She asked me what I meant. I said, "Well, after two or three years of spending a lot of money"—the objective was to get all youngsters into proper child care or nurseries, if their parents wished—"if we want to make it available to everyone, at the present rate we will not do that in our lifetime." She said, "I can't work any harder." I told her that I was not suggesting that she worked harder but that she stepped back. If that is our objective and the mountain that we are climbing—to use the words of the Prime Minister—yet after six years we are still in the foothills, it would be fine to get the oxygen masks off and take a bit of time to think that in the lifetime of even our optimistic Government, we will not get to the top. That might sound flippant, but there are 200,000 people in the inner city in Leeds—they are pensioners, the lad trying to find work and the lass living in fear in a low-paid job.
	I did not come into Parliament or politics to attack poverty on the margins. Neither my colleagues nor I came into politics to make poverty more comfortable. I wanted to eliminate poverty, which is do-able, and certainly do-able in a city such as Leeds, given the jobs that we have. I say to everybody concerned that if after six years we are nowhere near that aim and people are still living in such conditions, we must start to look at ourselves. We must have the humility to say that we owe it to the people out there to reappraise what we are doing, how we do it and how fast we do it. It is no joke to live in poverty, it is no joke to live in fear and it is no joke to raise kids yet realise that they will not get the same chances and standard of living as a kid living in a more prosperous part of Leeds—that is what all the figures add up to.
	In this new listening Government, I hope that there will be some humility and that we will reappraise what we are doing. If we fail, the people whom we represent and those who look to us as the last hope will never forgive us. When Cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister look back on our unprecedented majority and power, they must consider the timidity with which we have approached the problem. The Minister might say that we have a lot of policies and that we are not timid, but we are not successful. Too many people are hurting. It would be the greatest crime to have such a majority, such power and such time only to leave office and hand over power at some time in the middle of the century to what will presumably be a right-wing Conservative Government who will have no interest in ordinary people. If that happens, we will have failed not only this generation of ordinary people but also future generations.

Yvette Cooper: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) on choosing to raise the important issue of inner-city poverty in Leeds and on his passionate remarks about his constituency and the lives of the people who live there. He has worked hard for many years to address the problem of poverty. I share his concerns about inner-city poverty and join him in commending the Yorkshire Evening Post for its campaign on the issue. Too often, poverty and inequality are invisible to the majority of people. It is a tribute to a campaigning regional newspaper that it has managed to highlight an issue that newspapers do not always cover. They often do not prioritise poverty and action that tackles inequalities.
	I take my hon. Friend's points seriously. I disagree that no progress has been made—important progress has been made on a range of issues. However, I agree that there is more to do. Interestingly, our progress on some things has created new challenges in others. Some of the Government's measures to address poverty are universal; they affect constituents across the country. The family income of the worst-off has increased considerably with the introduction of tax credits, increases in child benefit and the overall substantial increases in support for both those in low-paid work, so that work pays, and those without work. As a result, the number of children in relative income poverty fell from 34 per cent. in 1999–97 to 30 per cent. in 2001–02, which is before the most recent increases. The absolute low income fell from 34 per cent. to 20 per cent. That is a result of the Government's policy changes and can mean a difference of hundreds of pounds a month in the pockets of low-income families who would not have received that money under the Tory Government. Those changes have only been possible because of a Labour Government and their commitment to tackling child poverty.
	There is still a long way to go, however. The Chancellor is right to establish a review on how to meet the ambitious target of abolishing child poverty over a 20-year period. No such target has been set by a Government before. The truth is that we cannot achieve that target in six years. I feel passionately about child poverty and will argue continually for more to be done to address the terrible problems that cause it. Equally, however, it is not possible to abolish child poverty in six years. We must recognise that even a 20-year target is ambitious. The issues cut across generations as they pass from one generation to another. We know that people who grow up in poverty are more likely to live in poverty later on.
	The debate is not just about income. My hon. Friend gave an eloquent account of the lives that his constituents lead. He mentioned housing on estates, the services that people receive, the opportunities they have and their sense of community, including whether they feel safe on the streets. We need to recognise that Leeds faces huge challenges. It is a city of great contrasts and inequalities. In many ways, Leeds is an amazing city. It is a powerhouse for economic growth in the region. My constituency is benefiting substantially from being close to Leeds and its economic growth. Considerable regeneration is taking place. It is clear when one drives through the centre that the skyline is crammed with cranes, such is the building and investment in the city.
	Some areas are not sharing in the growth, however. Some communities are not keeping up and individuals feel shut out of the growth that is taking place elsewhere, and that problem creates substantial challenges. The Government's approach has been to prioritise regeneration in the most deprived wards in the country. We have argued that we need full employment in every region. We need to promote job growth so that everyone shares in the prosperity generated by the economic growth and the growth in jobs of the past few years. The challenge is how to ensure that every ward shares in that prosperity.
	Three wards in my hon. Friend's constituency—Burmantofts, Harehills and Seacroft—fall within the 10 per cent. of the most deprived wards in the country. I understand that Leeds city council estimates that the claimant count in those wards varies from 5.3 per cent. in Seacroft to 6.4 per cent. in Harehills. That is higher than the national average but it is considerably lower than it was 10 or 20 years ago. My constituency has experienced substantial employment growth relative to the terrible experiences of the high unemployment of the 1980s and early 1990s. The number of people in the claimant count has dropped substantially since 1997. In the seven most deprived wards in Leeds, it has dropped by 39.3 per cent. The number of people in work is welcome progress. However, the claimant count has fallen faster in other Leeds wards and Leeds as a whole has experienced a 41 per cent. drop over the same period.My hon. Friend is right that economic growth in Leeds is likely to be sustained for the coming period and employment growth will probably follow.
	My hon. Friend is also right that we must address the obstacles that people in some communities face in getting jobs that are, perhaps, just down the road. As a result of the new deal, we have made progress on child care and training, but we need to go further. The social exclusion unit is carrying out a detailed analysis on jobs and enterprise. It is considering the jobs gap between different areas and what we need to do to tackle the obstacles that some areas face so that we achieve full employment in every region.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) mentioned the close relationship between housing and the economy, in particular the work and jobs that are available at different times of housing development. The relationship between housing and the economy is important. It is the case in some parts of the country, although I cannot say whether this is true of the estates mentioned by my hon. Friends, that there are complex consequences if economic regeneration is not accompanied by rapid change in the housing market to address the problem of housing stock built for previous generations. Some people who get jobs move out of their estates and the position of those left behind becomes even more difficult. That can result in a complete housing market collapse in those areas. For that reason, we are introducing housing market renewal pathfinders in areas with the most severe problems to tackle low demand, and we are making substantial investment.
	The West Yorkshire Partnership is developing proposals for the regional housing board to fund areas such as Beeston and Harehills. I am worried about some of the housing-related issues that have been mentioned and would be happy to discuss those further. I would, of course, be happy to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East as well. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is aware of the issues concerning the Leeds ALMO. Officials are considering that and discussions are under way.

John Battle: We have a problem if the housing policy is to support housing associations. Their rents are structured in such a way that the only people who can afford to live in them are people who are on benefits for ever. People in that accommodation will never be able to get a job, even if we train them, or they will have to move out of the neighbourhood. We must crack that conundrum.

Yvette Cooper: Clearly, such a situation is not the intention of the programme. We are linking programmes around housing policy and economic regeneration more closely than ever before. It has often been the failing of previous programmes that they focused on issues of economic regeneration and jobs, or on housing renewal and improving the physical infrastructure of housing. We must link the two together. That is what the housing market renewal programme is all about. For constituency reasons, I know that that approach is being picked up in west Yorkshire as well. I will be happy to discuss further with my hon. Friend issues related to that.
	My other hon. Friends raised various aspects of the matter. Many issues associated with housing would benefit from further discussion with hon. Members, and I know that Members representing Leeds constituencies who are present in the Chamber share these concerns.
	Considerable programmes for economic regeneration are under way. Harehills, Burmantofts, Seacroft and Halton are all included in the neighbourhood renewal programme and should be benefiting from the investment of neighbourhood renewal funds, which in 2001-02 were £4.2 million and in 2003–04 were £8.4 million. Over a five-year period there has been a £35 million programme of investment, which is funding, for example, neighbourhood wardens in Harehills, Burmantofts and Seacroft wards.
	I am advised that the wardens are working hard to tackle antisocial behaviour, and I would be concerned if my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East thought that they were not making the difference that others believe they are making in other parts of the country. Again, I would happily talk to him further about that, as I know that the neighbourhood warden programmes have been greeted by many communities as a substantial improvement in tackling antisocial behaviour, addressing concerns such as abandoned cars and graffiti, and strengthening people's sense of community.
	My hon. Friend referred to issues around the St. James's partnership and the work that the primary care trust is doing as part of the Harehills neighbourhood renewal scheme. The role of local authorities is vital. My hon. Friend suggested that we were not supportive of local government's role, but my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has championed the role of local government in regeneration, particularly in respect of economic issues, which can be so fundamental, and he is supporting greater powers and freedoms for local government. It is an area where we need to go further, and that is happening.
	My personal view is that the programme that is doing most to tackle inner-city poverty and inequality is sure start. As I recall, I visited the sure start programme in my hon. Friend's constituency some years ago. It is a hugely important programme because it addresses inter-generational inequalities. Because it provides support right at the beginning of a family's life and supports them through the years, it is the most radical programme that we have for addressing child poverty. Again, from memory, the work of the sure start programme there seemed to be extremely popular and successful. I would be concerned if my hon. Friend thought differently, and I should like to discuss the matter further with him.
	The Government have had an important impact on poverty and inequality. In my constituency I have seen jobs created on derelict pit sites. I have seen the number of families who are applauding the children's tax credit. I have seen the progress of programmes such as sure start and the new deal for communities, the partnerships that are being built and the substantial investment in mainstream services, reflected in the extra doctors, nurses and teachers whom my hon. Friend mentioned.
	We have a long way to go, and we must address the inequalities that exist within such short distances as the centre of Leeds. Such inequalities in health, education and opportunity within a single city, as my hon. Friend described, are morally unacceptable in the modern world. The social exclusion unit is examining the progress that we have made so far and the problems that remain.
	As my hon. Friend knows, I wrote to him and many of his colleagues a month or so ago about the work of the social exclusion unit. It is conducting a substantial analysis and hopes to have preliminary findings by the beginning of the new year. As part of that work, I am keen to have the views of hon. Members, particularly those living in low-income areas, and I would be happy to meet Members representing Leeds constituencies to discuss in more detail their views about social exclusion issues in Leeds and what should be fed into the work of the social exclusion unit.
	We have made considerable progress, but we have much still to do. We still have far to go before we sleep. We will make more progress and sustain the commitment to substantial investment in the lowest-income areas of the country through the neighbourhood renewal fund and the new deal for communities only if we can also allay people's concern about the injustices that remain, and if we can prove that such programmes are making a difference and changing people's lives. I believe that they are changing people's lives substantially, but we must demonstrate that and maintain the argument that politics can make a difference and is doing so.
	We will fail if we do not recognise the scale of the problem, and if we succumb to cynicism. We will fail, too, if we believe that we can solve the problems too quickly and if we raise people's expectations that some of the problems are easy to solve, and then let people become disillusioned. We need to keep the work going and our eyes on the prize. If we believe that it is right to invest in regeneration and tackling poverty, we must keep arguing for it. I believe that that is the right thing to do, and I know that my hon. Friends representing Leeds constituencies think so as well.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Eight o'clock.